The Gospel According to Jesus: A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings for Believers and Unbelievers (Audible Audio Edition): Stephen Mitchell, Phoenix Books: Books
This translation of the life and teachings of Jesus creates an image of not only a great spiritual teacher, but of a real person. Eminent author and translator Stephen Mitchell's approach to the Gospels has been widely praised for its depth, clarity, and radiance. This is a stunning work for believers and non-believers alike.
-----
This translation of the life and teachings of Jesus creates an image of not only a great spiritual teacher, but of a real person. Eminent author and translator Stephen Mitchell's approach to the Gospels has been widely praised for its depth, clarity, and radiance. This is a stunning work for believers and non-believers alike.
-----
on April 24, 2005
I spent a good 15 years of my life trying to make peace with Christianity. I've struggled to appreciate the avid Christians' ability to embrace the Bible as a literal transcription of God's word. I've struggled to forgive those who applied peer pressure to me as a young teen to "accept Jesus as my personal savior." I've pondered with bewilderment the idea that God would create us with inquisitive, questioning minds but then require us to engage in blind acceptance of Jesus' teachings.
Finally, I was pushed over the edge by an evangelical Christian housemate who wouldn't shut up, and I picked up Mitchell's book in the hope of developing my gentle art of verbal self-defense.
What an expected blessing this book has been! I was touched deeply and permanently by Mitchell's focus on forgiveness, and the many ways in which the teachings of Jesus the man are relevant to finding the Kingdom of Heaven within myself every day. Mitchell's book has helped me make peace with Christianity and Christians, and that is no small gift.
Finally, I was pushed over the edge by an evangelical Christian housemate who wouldn't shut up, and I picked up Mitchell's book in the hope of developing my gentle art of verbal self-defense.
What an expected blessing this book has been! I was touched deeply and permanently by Mitchell's focus on forgiveness, and the many ways in which the teachings of Jesus the man are relevant to finding the Kingdom of Heaven within myself every day. Mitchell's book has helped me make peace with Christianity and Christians, and that is no small gift.
on June 30, 2012
First of all, you'll notice as you look at the reviews on Amazon, that the low-star ratings are from Christian fundamentalists. As this is a review of the book, I won't spend too much time explaining why that is, but it seems useful to spend a little time on the topic, since the majority of people are unaware of the history of fundamentalism. There are reasons *why* most Christians nowadays are so adamant about there being only one interpretation Jesus, and it is for the most part a later development in Christianity, though at its deepest root, the Gospel of John and the writings of St. Paul are to blame.
The particular fundamentalism you see nowadays, though, was in response to critical study of the Bible that began in the 1800's, when scholars began to apply historical criteria to biblical accounts, and because their conclusions did not line up with what the Church had always taught, Christians rejected their conclusions and went on the defensive. In brief, one source of the fundamentalism you see today is a 12-volume study, The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915. It stressed five fundamentals:
- the inerrancy of the Bible;
- the literal nature and historical reality of the Biblical accounts, especially Jesus's miracles and Genesis;
- the Virgin Birth of Jesus;
-the bodily resurrection of Jesus;
- the belief that Jesus's death was the atonement for sin.
However, if one studies the history of the Church, many beliefs *about* Jesus were not "set in stone", so to speak, until much later, and early on there were alternative interpretations of Jesus's significance, for example,
- by the Ebionites (did not believe in Virgin Birth, but believed in atonement via Jesus's crucifixion) and
- the Gnostic Christians (focused on Jesus's teachings,
did not believe in atonement).
One early Christian thinker--to give an example of an alternative Christian theology--Origen, believed in reincarnation. For more information about this topic, see:
- Robert Oden's ser
- Bart Ehrman'
- Phillip Cary's series of lectures, "The History of Christian Theology".
[Actual Review]
This is an excellent little book. Stephen Mitchell is not really a translator, apparently he has someone give him a word-by-word translation, with all possible meanings of each word, and he works out a "version" of the text based on those. He employs widely-known (among scholars) criteria, particularly the criteria of multiple-attestation.
What that criteria boils down to is, that the more independent sources that you have that say the same thing ("independent" meaning the author did not copy from someone else's account, but came up with the material him-or-herself), the more likely it is to be true. Also, the earlier the source, the more likely it is to be true.
So, it is widely accepted that Mark was the first gospel written (65-70 CE); Matthew and Luke (75-80 CE) have certain passages and sayings that are identical almost word-for-word, so where they overlap, those sayings and passages are interpreted to have come from a text that they both drew from, a gospel of only the sayings of Jesus without a narrative, known as the Q Source; and the Gospel of John (90-95 CE), though considered the last gospel written and the least historical, at very least seems to have not relied on any other source, and contains at least some historically accurate material.
Given this, one concludes, for instance, that since Mark contains no Virgin Birth narrative, St. Paul (whose writings predate the gospels) doesn't mention a Virgin Birth, the Gospel of John does not mention a Virgin Birth, and Matthew and Luke have Virgin Birth narratives that ultimately contradict each other and cannot be reconciled, the Virgin Birth has a very low probability of having occurred, and the Virgin Birth was most likely based on a misinterpretation of the Greek translation (in the Septuagint) of the Hebrew word for "Young Unmarried Girl". As such, Stephen Mitchell begins his Gospel where Mark begins his, at Jesus's baptism.
Mitchell is a very subtle, elegant translator. The Gospel itself is very short, the bulk of the book being a thorough Introduction, and substantial footnotes.
While Mitchell does rely on historical criteria, he does not, as Thomas Jefferson did, shy away from Jesus's healings and miracles, which makes this a spiritual book, firmly rooted in the experience of the divine, rather than a secular book, i.e. a mere treatise on ethics.
In our modern era, where the contemporary intellectual or spiritual seeker finds the overbearing, domineering, condescending attitude/approach of evangelical Christianity off-putting, this Gospel presents a far more palatable, relatable, and--not to sound vulgar, but--useful Jesus.
An example of the latter is that Mitchell cuts out the Apocalypticism found in the New Testament, which is basically useless in the 21st Century. It should be noted that, based on historical criteria, historians agree that Jesus did in fact believe that the Kingdom was at hand, and his teachings *did* contain apocalyptic elements. Stephen Mitchell does not satisfactorily substantiate his belief that those apocalyptic elements came later. However, I don't dock this translation any points for that, because I myself would have removed the apocalyptic elements, simply because they aren't useful, and in any case the world has gone on for 2000 years without an apocalypse, so those elements were erroneous. So, Mitchell has incorrect reasons for removing those, but his reasons don't matter, since the same outcome was achieved.
The only actual gripe I have is that the Gospel does not have versification. Perhaps to do so would have seemed pretentious, would have made it seem like Mitchell had the audacity to think that his version of Jesus's message would receive such a canonical status that people would need or want verses to refer to back to it, to cite particular passages. Even so, it's still a feature that would have been useful.
As others have said, in Mitchell's text, Jesus does come off as somewhat Daoist. However, that's only a problem if you lean towards fundamentalism. For those of us who are open to studying other religions and adopting spiritual insights from them, Jesus finally takes his place alongside the other world religions, rather than the adversarial stance that mainstream Christianity has portrayed Jesus as having for so long.
This Jesus is also more in line with the Jesus that the Gnostics portray, and depending on your personal perspective on Jesus, you might also be interested in reading
The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.
And, if you like The Gospel of Jesus, you might enjoy reading
A Book of Psalms, Mitchell's translation and adaptation of 50 Psalms, as well as
Opening To You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms, by Norman Fischer.
The particular fundamentalism you see nowadays, though, was in response to critical study of the Bible that began in the 1800's, when scholars began to apply historical criteria to biblical accounts, and because their conclusions did not line up with what the Church had always taught, Christians rejected their conclusions and went on the defensive. In brief, one source of the fundamentalism you see today is a 12-volume study, The Fundamentals, published 1910-1915. It stressed five fundamentals:
- the inerrancy of the Bible;
- the literal nature and historical reality of the Biblical accounts, especially Jesus's miracles and Genesis;
- the Virgin Birth of Jesus;
-the bodily resurrection of Jesus;
- the belief that Jesus's death was the atonement for sin.
However, if one studies the history of the Church, many beliefs *about* Jesus were not "set in stone", so to speak, until much later, and early on there were alternative interpretations of Jesus's significance, for example,
- by the Ebionites (did not believe in Virgin Birth, but believed in atonement via Jesus's crucifixion) and
- the Gnostic Christians (focused on Jesus's teachings,
did not believe in atonement).
One early Christian thinker--to give an example of an alternative Christian theology--Origen, believed in reincarnation. For more information about this topic, see:
- Robert Oden's ser
- Bart Ehrman'
- Phillip Cary's series of lectures, "The History of Christian Theology".
[Actual Review]
This is an excellent little book. Stephen Mitchell is not really a translator, apparently he has someone give him a word-by-word translation, with all possible meanings of each word, and he works out a "version" of the text based on those. He employs widely-known (among scholars) criteria, particularly the criteria of multiple-attestation.
What that criteria boils down to is, that the more independent sources that you have that say the same thing ("independent" meaning the author did not copy from someone else's account, but came up with the material him-or-herself), the more likely it is to be true. Also, the earlier the source, the more likely it is to be true.
So, it is widely accepted that Mark was the first gospel written (65-70 CE); Matthew and Luke (75-80 CE) have certain passages and sayings that are identical almost word-for-word, so where they overlap, those sayings and passages are interpreted to have come from a text that they both drew from, a gospel of only the sayings of Jesus without a narrative, known as the Q Source; and the Gospel of John (90-95 CE), though considered the last gospel written and the least historical, at very least seems to have not relied on any other source, and contains at least some historically accurate material.
Given this, one concludes, for instance, that since Mark contains no Virgin Birth narrative, St. Paul (whose writings predate the gospels) doesn't mention a Virgin Birth, the Gospel of John does not mention a Virgin Birth, and Matthew and Luke have Virgin Birth narratives that ultimately contradict each other and cannot be reconciled, the Virgin Birth has a very low probability of having occurred, and the Virgin Birth was most likely based on a misinterpretation of the Greek translation (in the Septuagint) of the Hebrew word for "Young Unmarried Girl". As such, Stephen Mitchell begins his Gospel where Mark begins his, at Jesus's baptism.
Mitchell is a very subtle, elegant translator. The Gospel itself is very short, the bulk of the book being a thorough Introduction, and substantial footnotes.
While Mitchell does rely on historical criteria, he does not, as Thomas Jefferson did, shy away from Jesus's healings and miracles, which makes this a spiritual book, firmly rooted in the experience of the divine, rather than a secular book, i.e. a mere treatise on ethics.
In our modern era, where the contemporary intellectual or spiritual seeker finds the overbearing, domineering, condescending attitude/approach of evangelical Christianity off-putting, this Gospel presents a far more palatable, relatable, and--not to sound vulgar, but--useful Jesus.
An example of the latter is that Mitchell cuts out the Apocalypticism found in the New Testament, which is basically useless in the 21st Century. It should be noted that, based on historical criteria, historians agree that Jesus did in fact believe that the Kingdom was at hand, and his teachings *did* contain apocalyptic elements. Stephen Mitchell does not satisfactorily substantiate his belief that those apocalyptic elements came later. However, I don't dock this translation any points for that, because I myself would have removed the apocalyptic elements, simply because they aren't useful, and in any case the world has gone on for 2000 years without an apocalypse, so those elements were erroneous. So, Mitchell has incorrect reasons for removing those, but his reasons don't matter, since the same outcome was achieved.
The only actual gripe I have is that the Gospel does not have versification. Perhaps to do so would have seemed pretentious, would have made it seem like Mitchell had the audacity to think that his version of Jesus's message would receive such a canonical status that people would need or want verses to refer to back to it, to cite particular passages. Even so, it's still a feature that would have been useful.
As others have said, in Mitchell's text, Jesus does come off as somewhat Daoist. However, that's only a problem if you lean towards fundamentalism. For those of us who are open to studying other religions and adopting spiritual insights from them, Jesus finally takes his place alongside the other world religions, rather than the adversarial stance that mainstream Christianity has portrayed Jesus as having for so long.
This Jesus is also more in line with the Jesus that the Gnostics portray, and depending on your personal perspective on Jesus, you might also be interested in reading
The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.
And, if you like The Gospel of Jesus, you might enjoy reading
A Book of Psalms, Mitchell's translation and adaptation of 50 Psalms, as well as
Opening To You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms, by Norman Fischer.
on January 25, 2002
Stephen Mitchell does something almost unforgivable in this book by stripping core tenets of the Christian faith from his "translation" of the New Testament. Something strange happens, though: God's truth shines through anyway. The author parses and paraphrases, and leaves out virtually the entire Gospel, but the reader can tell what he's aiming for.
This is not, as I see it, an attempt to rewrite the Gospel or translate the Gospel, but rather an attempt to show particular facets in an enlightening way. The reason the gross omissions are forgivable is that he takes parts of Jesus' teachings and makes them shine far more brightly than before. The parable of the Prodigal Son, in particular, receives the attention that it should. Mitchell might have problems with what he considers the more "mythological" aspects of Christianity, but his writing demonstrates a real understanding of the concepts of grace, forgiveness, and divine providence. Yes, a lot of this is because these are the facets of Christianity that dovetail with his Zen philosophy and training, but this remains the strength of the book.
What every reader should realize about this work, though, is that it cannot be considered a definitive translation of the Gospel. It is neither scholarly nor historical. Rather, it is poetic and interpretive, and the author prefers to present the gist of the text, particularly where a precise translation doesn't translate context or connotations. Obviously, the problem with this is that the author's subjective judgments can and do get in the way.
The main reason that I give this book four stars rather than three is that the author is explicitly honest about his motives and intentions, and those parts of the Gospel he chooses to translate are helpful both to unbelievers who are trying to understand Christianity and to believers as extensions to traditional Bible study.
Finally, while the whole book is technically blasphemy, it helped me return to my faith after a long hiatus. Make of that what you will.
This is not, as I see it, an attempt to rewrite the Gospel or translate the Gospel, but rather an attempt to show particular facets in an enlightening way. The reason the gross omissions are forgivable is that he takes parts of Jesus' teachings and makes them shine far more brightly than before. The parable of the Prodigal Son, in particular, receives the attention that it should. Mitchell might have problems with what he considers the more "mythological" aspects of Christianity, but his writing demonstrates a real understanding of the concepts of grace, forgiveness, and divine providence. Yes, a lot of this is because these are the facets of Christianity that dovetail with his Zen philosophy and training, but this remains the strength of the book.
What every reader should realize about this work, though, is that it cannot be considered a definitive translation of the Gospel. It is neither scholarly nor historical. Rather, it is poetic and interpretive, and the author prefers to present the gist of the text, particularly where a precise translation doesn't translate context or connotations. Obviously, the problem with this is that the author's subjective judgments can and do get in the way.
The main reason that I give this book four stars rather than three is that the author is explicitly honest about his motives and intentions, and those parts of the Gospel he chooses to translate are helpful both to unbelievers who are trying to understand Christianity and to believers as extensions to traditional Bible study.
Finally, while the whole book is technically blasphemy, it helped me return to my faith after a long hiatus. Make of that what you will.
on February 14, 2009
Quite a remarkable book. It dares to declare ideas I had intuited but did not pursue out of fear of "lightning bolts". Actually, this makes so much more sense than what we have been taught in traditional religious dogmatic teaching. In fact, it makes Jesus much more "real" for me and his works that much more astonishing. It also supports my observation that the God of the Bible always chooses the least expected, most unlikely, weakest, slowest, etc. to work His will through, thereby glorifying Himself that much more and reminding us that it is not by our might, intelligence and fame that we are successful.
on February 19, 2008
This book is in my opinion the ultimate way for one who was raised in but has abandoned Christianity to reconcile his/her feelings about Jesus and his teachings with any guilt that may have arisen from forsaking them and with their new beliefs. Stephen Mitchell shows how even a non-believer may become quite enthralled with Jesus, and at the same time shows that he can be interpreted in more than one way--in fact one of the main thrusts of the book is to show how Gnostics and many agnostics and spiritualists (including our country's founding fathers, as has been revealed over the last decade or two!) interpreted Jesus quite differently than Christians do, taking him more as the ultimate guru and taking many things differently. For instance there are many that believe that Jesus was quite misinterpreted regarding his divinity (his referral to himself as "The Son of Man," the revelations provided by the Essenes and Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) Many people of a variety of faiths believe Jesus was divine, but in more the way Buddha was, as someone who found the divine in himself and became it wholly, as we all might be able to do. Another point of contention that Stephen puts very eloquently is the idea that Jesus was speaking of the here and now (or a particular way of experiencing it) when he spoke of "The Kingdom of God," rather than a separate heaven completely unknowable to our living spirit. This seems quite obvious/plausible if one removes the dogma of theology from the situation. This book is ideal for: non-Christians who are spiritual or of another faith; Christians of an unusual sect or belief system (Christians that believe the other books of the Gospel but find John and Revelations unbelievable or hard to swallow/quantify/prove, for instance); or those who want to understand the spirituality and ethos of our country's founding fathers (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.).
on February 11, 2000
I purchased this book when it first came out in late 1993, after reading a laudatory review of it in Commonweal. Its insights into the man Jesus -- admittedly empathic and speculative rather than academic -- are profound, and I find myself still referring back to many of its passages. I especially like Mitchell's discussion of how Jesus's perceived illegitimacy led to his focusing on forgiveness, and on Joseph as the real hero of the Christmas story. My only problem with Mitchell's portrayal of Jesus as "spiritual master" is that it leaves out those qualities of Jesus that got himself killed. The historical record is clear that the real Jesus was crucified by the Romans, most likely for disturbing the peace (like overturning the money tables in the Temple). I can't see Mitchell's Jesus acting in such a way that would get himself crucified.
on September 30, 1998
Stephen Mitchell exposes the essence of the life of Jesus in a way that makes him irresistable. What if he were just a man? What if he were no more akin to God than you or I? His teachings suddenly have a magnitude of insight, brilliance, and commitment that are absolutely astounding. Since 1995, I have read this book cover to cover more times than I can count. Each reading is rewarded with a clearer, deeper understanding of Jesus the man.
on February 9, 1999
Many thanks to Mitchell for restoring my interest and faith in the gospels. His comprehensive introduction and commentary following his rendition of the good news was very helpful to making up my own mind as to what message God was sending us in the person of Jesus. I recognize the love God was communicating in Mitchell's book. A must read for all truth seekers!
on March 8, 2001
I really like Stephen Mitchell's translations (and I mean _translations_, not the texts he has occasionally tried to assemble using _other_ people's translations from languages he doesn't read). He has an uncanny skill for "listening" his way into a text and saying what it "wants" to say in clear, simple, English poetry/prose. Which means I think well of the positive portions of his translations of Genesis, the Psalms, the book of Job, and (in this book) the Christian New Testament.
I also like parts of his commentary. Here, too, he is remarkably adept at adducing pertinent parallels among at least the mystical strands of various religions and "wisdom traditions." More often than not, I find his lucid comments useful and even enlightening (and, incidentally, less far from, or at least less irreconcilable with, the religious "mainstream" than he sometimes thinks they are).
But boy, when it comes to scholarship . . .
In the present volume Mitchell isn't content to rely on mainstream liberal-Christian scholars like E.P. Sanders. No, he further relies on the risible "scholarship" of the "Jesus Seminar" and uses their remarkable voting-with-balls scheme as an illustration of _consensus_ among New Testament scholars. (It's not an illustration of consensus even within the "Jesus Seminar" itself.) And as though _that_ weren't enough, he even makes use of Jane Schaberg's _The Illegitimacy of Jesus_ (which argues, based on a couple of shreds of text, that Jesus must have been a mamzer).
This is par for the course with Mitchell. His translation of _Genesis_ is chopped to bits because he relies on the JEDP "documentary hypothesis" and thinks he can tell (via Buddhist spiritual insight, one supposes) which portions of the text are spiritually worthwhile and which are not. Never mind that no two commentators have ever divided the texts in just the same way and that the hypothesis itself has been pretty well decimated by, e.g., Umberto Cassuto among others.
Ditto his translations of Job (in which he omits the entire speech by Elihu) and the Psalms (in which he does a nice job with many of them but manages to turn all the "complaining" Psalms into expressions of spiritual acquiescence simply by omitting and rephrasing everything he finds insufficiently transparent). What he leaves _in_ is usually worth reading. But good heavens, how much he leaves out!
In the present volume what is left out is why in the world anyone would ever have executed such a harmless Bu-Ju sage. Aside from a brief comment to the effect that it would have been dangerous to teach "the truth" in occupied Jerusalem, we are left altogether in the dark as to why this enlightened fellow could possibly have posed a threat to Roman rule.
Also omitted is any consideration of even the possibility that Jesus's resurrection was a historical event. My word, Rabbi Pinchas Lapide devoted an entire book to elaborating the view that it probably _was_ historical even though he disagreed with Christianity about its precise significance. And even people who _don't_ think it was historical should be worried by Mitchell's repeated denigration of the "insight" of Peter, Paul, et alia, and his insistence that anybody who believes in a literal resurrection is the spiritual equivalent of a thumbsucker -- in contrast, say, to the more spiritually advanced Ralph Waldo Emerson and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom are quoted here at some length.
On the other hand, he does do a decent job of placing some of Jesus's teachings in their historical Jewish context. And he remarks trenchantly that Jesus is "prototypically Jewish" in making "righteousness seem like the most beautiful thing in the world." This, I think, is just right. (And I can't fault him for wanting everybody to read E.P. Sanders's _Jesus and Judaism_, which really is a great book.)
Read carefully and critically, then. This _is_ a good book on the whole; I've owned it since it was published and I still rather like a great deal of it. But watch out for Mitchell's tendency to substitute his own rather New-Agey "spiritual insight" for sound scholarship.
I also like parts of his commentary. Here, too, he is remarkably adept at adducing pertinent parallels among at least the mystical strands of various religions and "wisdom traditions." More often than not, I find his lucid comments useful and even enlightening (and, incidentally, less far from, or at least less irreconcilable with, the religious "mainstream" than he sometimes thinks they are).
But boy, when it comes to scholarship . . .
In the present volume Mitchell isn't content to rely on mainstream liberal-Christian scholars like E.P. Sanders. No, he further relies on the risible "scholarship" of the "Jesus Seminar" and uses their remarkable voting-with-balls scheme as an illustration of _consensus_ among New Testament scholars. (It's not an illustration of consensus even within the "Jesus Seminar" itself.) And as though _that_ weren't enough, he even makes use of Jane Schaberg's _The Illegitimacy of Jesus_ (which argues, based on a couple of shreds of text, that Jesus must have been a mamzer).
This is par for the course with Mitchell. His translation of _Genesis_ is chopped to bits because he relies on the JEDP "documentary hypothesis" and thinks he can tell (via Buddhist spiritual insight, one supposes) which portions of the text are spiritually worthwhile and which are not. Never mind that no two commentators have ever divided the texts in just the same way and that the hypothesis itself has been pretty well decimated by, e.g., Umberto Cassuto among others.
Ditto his translations of Job (in which he omits the entire speech by Elihu) and the Psalms (in which he does a nice job with many of them but manages to turn all the "complaining" Psalms into expressions of spiritual acquiescence simply by omitting and rephrasing everything he finds insufficiently transparent). What he leaves _in_ is usually worth reading. But good heavens, how much he leaves out!
In the present volume what is left out is why in the world anyone would ever have executed such a harmless Bu-Ju sage. Aside from a brief comment to the effect that it would have been dangerous to teach "the truth" in occupied Jerusalem, we are left altogether in the dark as to why this enlightened fellow could possibly have posed a threat to Roman rule.
Also omitted is any consideration of even the possibility that Jesus's resurrection was a historical event. My word, Rabbi Pinchas Lapide devoted an entire book to elaborating the view that it probably _was_ historical even though he disagreed with Christianity about its precise significance. And even people who _don't_ think it was historical should be worried by Mitchell's repeated denigration of the "insight" of Peter, Paul, et alia, and his insistence that anybody who believes in a literal resurrection is the spiritual equivalent of a thumbsucker -- in contrast, say, to the more spiritually advanced Ralph Waldo Emerson and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom are quoted here at some length.
On the other hand, he does do a decent job of placing some of Jesus's teachings in their historical Jewish context. And he remarks trenchantly that Jesus is "prototypically Jewish" in making "righteousness seem like the most beautiful thing in the world." This, I think, is just right. (And I can't fault him for wanting everybody to read E.P. Sanders's _Jesus and Judaism_, which really is a great book.)
Read carefully and critically, then. This _is_ a good book on the whole; I've owned it since it was published and I still rather like a great deal of it. But watch out for Mitchell's tendency to substitute his own rather New-Agey "spiritual insight" for sound scholarship.
No comments:
Post a Comment