Talk:The Gospel According to Jesus Christ

The "criticism" section has many basic spelling and grammatical errors, and is of a caliber and quality that is unbecoming of a wiki article. It needs dramatic revision to even be syntactically or grammatically correct, as well as several subjective or unsourced assertions. The first revision attempts to correct this.

However, the entire paragraph itself in its original form is totally unsourced, as well as relying on subjective claims as to whether or not the book actually mocks or disagrees with the bible. Additionally, it provides NO objective sources of people who actually criticize the book on the grounds given, other than apparently the author of this section. It is not wikipedia's place to present new criticism here, but only to report on criticism held and publicised as a controversy.

Finally, rather than present the information from an objective point of view, or at least attempt to do so, the criticisms against the book are presented as fact. For example, the entire sentence about the authors "contrary claim" that the book does not agree with the gospel because it witholds the resurrection is subjectively untrue. The Gospel of Matthew does not contain any stories or accounts of anyone meeting jesus after the resurrection, and ends with a vision of an angel at an empty tomb. This could be construed as sharing the same ending as the novel. This is not to make an argument that the two are the same, but rather to point out that the assertion that the author intends to offend is a totally subjective one. The same problem is present with the simple "sexual activity between Joseph and Mary" which is an assertion that some Christians disagree on, and is a totally subjective criticism as well. Many Christians believe that the bible suggests that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The content of this paragraph is totally subjective.

Lastly, both the writing style and spelling errors suggest that the article itself was written as part of a larger, seperate report, probably as an assignment for a high-school level english class. This theory is evidenced by the original paragraphs non-compliance with wikipedia article standards, as well as the style of "citation" at the end (MLA parenthetical citation, as required by most high-school book reports). This highly suggests that this section was not, in fact, written for wikipedia, but was instead a copy and paste from a book report written by a high-school student. Since the original author of that work is unknown, the entire section represents a copyright danger, because the copyright status of the original section is unknown.

In summary, the paragraph presents the authors opinions of the novel as a "criticism", presents those subjective criticisms as fact, and possibly does so in violation of another individuals copyrights. Although a criticism page is important for any work, it is for the listed reasons that my second revision deletes the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.162.223 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial Views of the Novel
I think it would make more sense an article about these views and with proper criticism. I suppose you never read the novel ? It can be interpreted as a rationalist way of dismantle most Christian beliefs as myths. This includes the conception of Jesus as being the son of Joseph and Mary, and that´s why the writer describes textually the sexual act betwen both. I suppose you never read the Gospels of Mathew and Mark ? It´s absolutely true that the autor claimed that the novel ends like any of the Gospels, but the novel simpy ends with Jesus death in the cross, not with anything related to his ressurrection. I think you must be sleeping when you read Mathew, because it´s Mark that, in the original version, ends with the discovery of an empty tomb, wich for the first Christians was a proof of Jesus ressurrection. Not any Gospel ends simply with Jesus death in the cross. It would make more sense, from a Christian perspective. Of course it makes all the sense from an atheist perspective. Other controversial issues are the attempt of the writer to create a sort of "Dark Book of Christianity", with a full list of all Christian martyrs, even those legendary, presented to Jesus by God. Since the writer is a communist he seems to have forgotten that all the victims of communism in less then a century were much more then the victism of Christianity in more then 1900 years. The writer bitterness over the fall of communism in Eastern Europe can be pointed as one of the reasons he wrote the novel.82.154.83.112 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

From the Portuguese Wikipedia, I found this criticism. I will try to translate it latter. Carlos H. da C. Silva, na revista Humanística e Teológica, expõe o modo como interpreta o romance: (...) toda a tradição ocidental cristã não se baseia em algo «verdadeiro» mas num vazio, numa fraude colossal. Seria esta a verdade dialetizada (...), conservadorista e ideal, a denunciar o que pareciam as formas alienatórias e impeditivas. (...) Nesse sentido, é como se se advogasse um eco de puro incómodo psicológico de Saramago em relação aos Evangelhos e a tudo quanto de «doentio» neles, ou melhor, numa hermenêutica e moralização longamente estabelecida, se veio a decantar. (...).82.154.83.112 (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The translation of most of the article by Carlos H. da C. Silva, from the magazine "Humanística e Teológica" is at it follows : "(...) all the western christian civilization it's not based in something "real" but in a emptyness, a massive fraud. That would be the dialectized true (...), conservative and ideal, to denounce what it seemed to be the alienating and impeditive forms. (...) In that sense, it's it it was advocated an echoe of pure psychological disturbance of Saramago in relation to the Gospels and to everything there is of "sickening" (...)".81.193.223.70 (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Librucho bajero
Es un librucho, un manual bajero escrito con toda la intención de escandalizar. Pura basura amarillista. Se ve que a Saramago le hacía falta el dinero cuando la escribió.190.62.195.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Gospel According to Jesus Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/nobel/literature/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on The Gospel According to Jesus Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061231015819/http://www.webster.edu:80/~corbetre/personal/reading/saramago-gospel.html to http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/saramago-gospel.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061231015819/http://www.webster.edu:80/~corbetre/personal/reading/saramago-gospel.html to http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/saramago-gospel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)