Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This is brilliant, Manny.

I agree. I loved this. A classic. And 4 stars yet. :)

Manny, I've seen these types of Biblical exegeses on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ before. I certainly hope you've fortified your ramparts for the onslaught of club-wielding, superstitious mouth-breathers who are quite ready to beat the love of Christ into your irreverent heathen-ass soul. (Yoohoo, Matt Reynolds, where are you?)

Anyway, great review.

and in the Easter season non-the-less!

Thank you! And hey, I hope it's clear from the review that I'm actually quite positive about Christ, even though I'm considerably less keen on Saint Paul. I'm surprised he even kept the name, but you know how useful a well established brand is... "Paulianity" just wouldn't sound as good, would it?

Come make a Good Friday even better, with Manny Rayner!

And hey, I hope it's clear from the review that I'm actually quite positive about Christ, even though I'm considerably less keen on Saint Paul.

Sorry, but referring to the New Testament as "science fiction" in your first sentence is enough to earn you a Christian fatwa in certain circles.

Sorry, but referring to the New Testament as "science fiction" in your first sentence is enough to earn you a Christian fatwa in certain circles.

I just don't know what people have against science fiction. I listed Dante as science fiction too, and I am a HUGE fan. I mean it in a good way!

But you're right - unfortunately, some people take offense at any religious sentiments expressed in a dialect that slightly differs from their own. Though, as far as I can see, GR is fairly ecumenical...

Heh. Having only read the New Testament in college, I was pleasantly surprised at how nice it was as a literary work. Until I got to Paul. I thought his insanity ruined the whole book!

Personally, I always liked Paul and his letters. My own take on him is that he was the only sane man amidst a bunch of crazies. But there it is.

A great review

"(Yoohoo, Matt Reynolds, where are you?)"

Well, if you put it that way, I can hardly avoid showing up. Fire away.

Don't get your hopes up David. I'm not about to beat the love of Christ into you. I don't even know you except as a foul mouthed and insecure person who apparantly offends alot more people on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ more severely than you offend me, and its quite beyond my human ability to have a true compassion for a total stranger who seems possessed of enough wherewithal to make their own way in the world. So unless God shows up in a shining light and says 'Go to David', I'll cheerfully leave the care of your soul to you and your loved ones and not be burdened by it. Whatever happened to the guy who used to send me obscenity laced emails and then promptly blocked me? Is it too much trouble to block me again in your new account? Or is all of this a desparate plea for attention?

I think it should be needless to say that no one else here is going to get witnessed to unless they ask me to do so, and that otherwise my disagreements with them over something touching on religion are no different than they would be over something touching any other matter.

"Personally, I always liked Paul and his letters. My own take on him is that he was the only sane man amidst a bunch of crazies. But there it is."

I personally think this reflects a much better understanding of the book being reviewed than that of the reviewer.

A few years back there was a dramatic production called 'The Gospel of John' which was released in theaters in the United States and was moderately successful. It is a word for word dramaticization of 'The Gospel of John', and sufficiently faithful to the text to satisfy even a superstitious mouth breathing club wielder like myself. I challenge anyone who calls himself an atheist to watch this movie and then claim Christ is presented in the narrative as someone who is 'sane' or 'sympathetic'. I think the various narratives are quite clear and consistent on this much at least - that The Emissary struck everyone who met him as being bug-nut crazy. I'm not at all sure where anyone would get warm fuzzy feelings about The Emissary if you were familiar with the text, unless you believed he really was The Emissary.

I'm struck by the fact that the original poster says he likes the 'Mount of Olives' speach and the 'woman taken in adultery' (both from The Gospel of John). I can't help but wonder whether he's misidentified the speach with the much more famous 'Sermon on the Mount'. I equally wonder at his objection to the craziness of The Emissaries followers, since if you really believed that The Emissary wasn't a historical figure you'd probably have to believe that someone very much like Paul was the author of the 'women taken in adultery' episode in particular and added it particularly to the text.

So I can't help but be curious what Manny likes about the 'Mount of Olives' speach, that he finds objectionable about Paul.

Personally, with the aforementioned caveat, I'm a big fan of this sort of review by non-believers. It shows somewhat more serious thought about the matter than one often finds in people claiming to be believers. For example, I found Anthony Burgess's novelization of the Book of Acts to be thoroughly engrossing and enjoyable despite its secular treatment of the material. Mr. Burgess too painted Paul in an very unsympathetic light, albiet he required to use a good deal of invention that he otherwise didn't engage in to hammer his dislike home. Again, I'm wondering exactly what about him sets people off, and yet they can read through the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John and say lots of warm fuzzy things about the central character.

Matt! We're not always on the same page--re aesthetics let alone religious beliefs--but you blow me away at times with smart, thoughtful, challenging comments. And wit. I'm very intrigued by where this thread might go, how Manny might respond. (I'd join in, but my only confident assertion about John and Paul is that they were both mean to Ringo.)

And as to you and David... Might I suggest Thunderdome? I like you both, and I'd rather be on the outside of the cage when shit goes down.

I always kind of liked Paul too. Mostly because he won the power struggle in the early Jesus movement because he was the the most prolific writer. If Paul and Mark are not proof of the power of the written word I am not sure what is.

Mike. No, we aren't on the same page.

I'll probably never forgive you for dissing 'The Lord of the Rings'.

Except for that unpardonable slander, I like you as well and no small part of that is that we aren't always on the same page. It would be a dull world where the only things I ever heard were things I agreed with, and while I've yet to love anything you've recommended, it's worth knowing at least that it's out there.

As for Manny, I am genuinely curious. I have a good deal of respect for Manny's obviously formidable intelligence, but even so I can't help but wonder just how good his recall is of a book he last read about the time I was born.

As for 'Thunderdome', as you can imagine, I had to give up my career as a thug. I still have the bat, but I'm no longer available to break kneecaps. Perhaps if we mutually agreed to adopt the UFC rules, I could beat up someone in a loving compassionate Christ-like manner?

Ha! I am, I freely admit, not as much of a Bible scholar as I would like to be. Now I'll probably have to go and reread it, or at least some of it. I knew this would happen. Though apropos faulty recollection, even though I don't read the Bible very often myself, I have many friends who do, and frequently find myself discussing it with them.

Some other comments:

- The idea of treating the New Testament as a piece of SF is basically a steal from Doris Lessing's Shikasta.

- The premise of the review is that I'm pretending the New Testament is written by one person, in different voices. Presumably the author has to be Jehovah.

- I'll confess that I adapted the Christ/Paul argument from one of George Bernard Shaw's prefaces. Though I do find Christ a much more engaging figure than Paul! OK, He may have been crazy, but if so He was crazy in a very interesting and inspiring way. His ideas have become so much part of our culture that we maybe don't see any more how ground-breaking they were. Just to take one example: "turn the other cheek". I've often wondered whether this actually was the first ever explicit mention of the passive-aggressive strategy. Does anyone know of an earlier one?

Manny: I might as well explain myself a bit more clearly then.

The 'Olivet Discourse' is the main speach we have recorded by Christ given on the Mount of Olives. It's also known as the 'High Priestly Prayer', and its something of a pep talk to his followers on the eve of Christ's crucifiction. The reason it would be odd to say that you were particularly moved by it, is the 'Olivet Discourse' is the clearest evidence in the Gospel accounts that Christ believed himself to be God. It certainly isn't the sole foundation of this doctrine, but its by far the most fully developed passage supposedly in Christ's own words. In most cases, critics of Paul who claim that he hijacked the teachings of Christ focus on the idea that Paul and later followers believed Christ to be divine (and Christ didn't). So in most cases, people holding this viewpoint will want to argue that the Johannine Gospel is a latter invention in whole or in part, because if it isn't then Paul's doctrine - what you might call the emerging concensus on the meaning of Christ's life - becomes much more strongly supported by the text than otherwise.

With a few exceptions, the idea of the late invention of the Gospel of John getting harder to sustain based on the emerging archealogical evidence. Back in 1973, you could have made a reasonable argument that many of the Gospels had a 3rd or 4th century origin, and there wouldn't have been evidence to contridict the claim. But one of the places that it is now widely accepted that the passage might be a latter edition to the text is the very Pericope Adulterae that you mentioned liking. Quite a few scholars believe with good reason that its the work of a different author than the Gospel as a whole. Until recently in fact, it was believed to have been inserted in the 4th century during the very period that people fond of claiming that Christianity was negatively hijacked was, if it was, well 'hijacked'. However, I think that there is now good evidence that it was widely present by the 2nd century, and was probably added some time before 135 AD.

So if you are going to sustain the idea that Paul is hijacking the text - and very few other individuals are available to do so before 135 AD - you are also going to have to accept that Paul or someone very like him is the author of the 'woman accused of adultry story'.

I would however very much hope you find the Christ a much more engaging figure than Paul. Paul I'm sure is very gratified by your preference as well.

I don't know of an earlier example of 'passive-aggresive' as you call it, but I'm not a general religion subject matter expert, so there may be one. I do think that his 'Golden Rule' is the earliest clear formulation of the ethic of reciprocity as an active rather than passive duty - not just 'don't do harm' but 'love others the way you love youself'. As such, its the first statement of Progressive ethics as well. Jesus was a radical Liberal, which probably makes you happier than many of his present followers.

"The premise of the review is that I'm pretending the New Testament is written by one person, in different voices. Presumably the author has to be Jehovah."

Funny, but that's exactly the way I read it too.

This is the first time I've had the experience of writing a sacred text, however small. It's just like everyone said. Gabriel dictated the whole thing to me in a dream: I didn't understand it, but I followed his instructions and posted it on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. Before I know what's happened, there's a mountain of learned commentary that dwarfs my original posting. It's very educational.

But... going back to the original premise, if this WERE a science fiction novel told in several voices, and Christ were an emissary of an alien society inconceivably superior to ours, one wonders what He would actually have said, that was confusedly reported as the Olivet Discourse. He's clearly troubled, and you speculate about what's going on in the alien community; apparently things that he can't talk about directly. And it's fantastic poetry.

Matt wrote: "Manny: I might as well explain myself a bit more clearly then.

The 'Olivet Discourse' is the main speach we have recorded by Christ given on the Mount of Olives. It's also known as the 'High Pr..."

Hi Matt:

I'm certainly no scholar and am more than happy to be corrected. One thing that has always bothered me is that if Jesus believed himself to be "God" as you interpret the Mt. of Olives speech, then he wasn't really born, nor could he have died. So dying "for our sins" was off the table, as it were. That was the problem for the Arians who believed that it was imperative that Jesus be human and NOT divine, that there had to be a time when he didn't exist, otherwise God wasn't sacrificing anything. It was imperative for them that he had to die. If Jesus was god, that becomes meaningless, there could be no birth or death. Of course, the fact that Christians adopted the view of Athanasius had more to do with politics than theology.

"God" is the Riemann zeta function.

Matthew wrote: ""God" is the Riemann zeta function."

Or, perhaps the Riemann hypothesis?

To Summarize:
David wrote that Manny wrote And hey, I hope it's clear from the review that I'm actually quite positive about Christ, even though I'm considerably less keen on Saint Paul.,

and then Manny wrote that David wrote: Sorry, but referring to the New Testament as "science fiction" in your first sentence is enough to earn you a Christian fatwa in certain circles.

and then Ben wrote Mike wrote: "I'd join in, but my only confident assertion about John and Paul is that they were both mean to Ringo" HAHAHAHA-- good stuff Mike... I'm still laughing a bit.

and then Eric_W wrote Matt wrote: "Manny: I might as well explain myself a bit more clearly then.

The 'Olivet Discourse' is the main speach we have recorded by Christ given on the Mount of Olives. It's also known as the 'High Pr..."

and lastly Eric_W wrote Matthew wrote: ""God" is the Riemann zeta function."

Nice review, Manny.

Jen wrote: "Nice review, Manny.

"

Thanks Jen!

While we're all re-releasing our Easter-themed pieces...

A good review Manny.

Manny wrote: "While we're all re-releasing our Easter-themed pieces..."

Wait. We all re-released Easter-themed pieces? Who is the we in that sentence? Did I miss out on a vote free for all or something?

Ha! This fits with my latest LOST theory - the island is a sort-of sci fi conglomeration of all Christian theology and history. You've got your Christ figures, crazy Holy Spirits, and love triangles. I kind of hope I'm wrong, though.

Not a Paul fan, but he has his moments. I do like it in Romans when he says, "O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from the body of this flesh?" Or some such. I like the drama.

Wait. We all re-released Easter-themed pieces? Who is the we in that sentence?

Well, Paul had a rather good crucifix joke...

Ha! This fits with my latest LOST theory - the island is a sort-of sci fi conglomeration of all Christian theology and history.

Suddenly, the whole world is conspiring to make me regret not having seen LOST. There's a great scene in Kick-Ass when the hero thinks he's about to die, and he's thinking of all the things he'll now never do. Never marry the girl... never see their kids... never know how LOST ends...

manny, this is genius. Can't believe I never read this before.

I cannot refrain from commenting your great projection with my beloved image of Apostle Paul

Pavel wrote: "I cannot refrain from commenting your great projection with my beloved image of Apostle Paul"

Ah, I'm sorry, my prejudices against Paul stem (as I think I might have said in a comment above) from reading George Bernard Shaw at an impressionable age. Oddly enough, Shaw looked vaguely similar:

[image error]

But more seriously, I do feel that there is a theme here about how some truly exceptional people appear to have learned things in a way the rest of us can't understand. As far as we can tell, their knowledge comes from Elsewhere. It's then very tragic to see how normal people debase and cheapen their message, even if their intentions are entirely good and they are doing everything in their power to follow the person they admire most in the world.

Twentieth century examples I immediately think of are Einstein (physics), Wittgenstein (philosophy) and Fischer (chess). Smolin is very good on the subject of how people have debased and cheapened Einstein. I think Fischer's Paul figure is Kasparov, and Wittgenstein's is Searle.

For me Paul character is about another thing. His figure represents anyone's capability to excel himself and alter his or her destiny. To get from persecutor of Christians to the First Apostl role and at his Earth existense - that kind of thing potentially encourages people for the best they can achieve or at least it keeps disturbing our spirit.

Well, I think that just confirms the claim I make in the review, that Paul is the most interesting character in the story. You can interpret his actions in so many different ways. I certainly wouldn't say that your interpretation is wrong, it's just not the one I feel closest to.

I have exact same feeling about your analysis.

Oh my gosh Manny, this is almost exactly what I actually do believe! You have to add in a context that changes the perceived universe a bit more, though. I mean, the real fun of contact with a vastly superior alien species is that you truly are aswim (in a Frank Herbert-like way) in a system with layers upon layers of meaning and complexity that are beyond your comprehension, and simply pull you or hint you into higher levels than you currently enjoy.

So not just the characters are ambiguous, but the realities as well, the nature of truth and how that blurs with fiction (as art) (or art as revelation) and the question of which is more true, or if it even matters?

Then you have to add the question of whether Christ's teachings would come down to us in any form without the regrettable transformation wrought upon them by Saul, since as you pointed out, very little survives about Christ's life outside that tradition. And then you have to ask was it worth it. Like hey, Peter Jackson desecrated Tolkien, but also brought his work to the attention of millions more people, who have the option still of digging deeply and finding the true vein. The truly sacred, after all, is never easily conveyed. So many times (as this comment attests) one's tenderest feelings turn to ashes when one tries to describe them or share them with others.

Oh and you should add the whole cliffhanger aspect of the story, that unless humans do manage to absorb enough of Christ's understanding, his message, to be transformed in various fundamental ways, (while remaining even more uniquely themselves at the same time, paradoxically -- all the best stuff about this stuff turns out to be paradoxical), they absolutely won't be able to survive as a species or as individuals and join galactic civilization.

So Christ's act, in the wider sense (in context of his peers), is a ritual affirmation of faith that humans, or some humans, are capable of making the transition and are worth the effort. And that without that sacrifice (which was truly and permanently a deep sacrifice, in spite of its temporary nature -- see prior note re paradox) there was zero chance we would have.

Then there's one more crucial part you neglect which is strongly implied (though it becomes explicit in the sequel), to wit the invitation to the reader to permanently join the morally higher-level civilization, despite the almost constant humiliation it requires in realizing personal inadequacies, accepting them, feeling keenly and painfully aware of them, and nevertheless continuing to strive to overcome them one by one, each success leading to an even deeper realization of how painfully far one has to go, and finally the understanding that just as in many video games, each level is harder than the one before and demands more, oh and also that the levels are infinite.

Still, the fruits of the exercise are exquisite, having a savor which surpasseth all sweetness, and received directly from the hand of the most beloved who are as dear and personal as they are exalted and wholly divine. Indeed, the closest we currently come to the ordinary daily feelings of such morally elevated beings is our human feeling -- felt perhaps only once or a few times in our lives -- of being rapturously and joyously in love.

I'm overjoyed that you've seen so deeply into this story! So glad you get it! If you like this story, check out the sequel at !

Hi Manny,

I hate to add more complexity to an already multi-perspectival discussion, but you need to know the following.

Claire and I were looking at this page today, with your thumbnail photo at the top, and Claire said to Thomas (age 4) "Do you remember who that is? You haven't seen him for a while". "No", says Thomas. "It's Manny", says Claire. "Oh", says Thomas thoughtfully. "I thought it was God".

Is it just the beard? I hope so.

Dave

Tatiana, when are you writing up your belief system in book form? I will buy it the moment it comes out. But meanwhile, I'll have to content myself with the Book of Mormon, which I somehow still haven't gotten to. Thank you for reminding me.

Dave, this is the first time anyone's said I look like God. I've had "Jesus" more times than I can count, but I guess I'm getting older. The usual story about how one day you look in the mirror and suddenly see your father's face...

Manny

Hahaha, Manny, I'll tell my publisher we have one copy sold. I'm sure she'll give me the green light, especially since you're so influential here on GR. I'll even send you the advance copy and get your blurb for the back cover. =)

I love your reverent form of irreverence! Probably if you could say many people have mistaken you for God, the blurb will sell another dozen copies at least! And if I do ever write it, I'll definitely follow Orson Scott Card (who, believe it or not, was influential in my own conversion despite our polar opposition in politics) and put it in the form of science fiction.

By the way, if you do decide to read the BoM, do get one for free. The missionaries as delivery boys are optional. It really is great literature in so many ways, as well as being scripture. I know we've talked about that genre before. Or, heck, I'll send you one of mine. I have a few dozen in many different languages. I like the rosetta stone aspect of that. Would you like one in each of your half a dozen favorite languages to read and compare? I hear the translations range from very good to awful, but can't verify that directly. I can totally send you those, though, and it would give me a big kick. Just list your top six or so. I've got English, French, German, Spanish, Igbo, Tagalog, and really almost any other language you can name,(certainly a lot I can't). There are three, I think, different Mayan languages in there, so that gives you some idea of the range of languages available.

And Joseph Smith's life was even more amazing and wonderful. He's such a delightful character. If you've seen the Southpark episode about it, it basically got the facts fairly correct while giving them a parody-ish spin, but I totally thought it made good missionary material! The long form, highly readable but really only for those with a great deal of interest, is Bushman's excellent biography, , which if you ever decide to read, by that point you'll have drunk the koolaid yourself and can buy your own copy. =D

I haven't seen the recent Broadway musical of the same name, but I hear it's great too.

Updated list of the languages available ().

Date¡ý Language¡ý Title¡ý Primary Location of Language¡ý Notes¡ý
1830 English The Book of Mormon [1] most recent edition 1982
1851 Danish Mormons Bog Denmark [1] most recent edition 1949; translated by Peter O. Hansen
1852 French Le Livre de Mormon [1]
1852 Welsh Llyfr Mormon Wales [2] most recent edition 2000
1852 German Das Buch Mormon [2] most recent edition 2003
1852 Italian Il Libro di Mormon Italy [1] most recent edition 1995
1855 Hawaiian Ka Buke a Moramona Hawaiian Islands [1] first non-European language translation; translated by Jonatana Napela and George Q. Cannon
1869 Deseret Alphabet (English) §® §£§Ô§á §Ó§ä §µ§½§ë§í§Ó§ï Utah Territory (defunct) [3] currently out of print.
1878 Swedish Mormons Bok Sweden [1] New translation published 2008.
1886 Spanish El Libro de Morm¨®n [1] selections published in 1875; most recent edition 1992; translated by Eduardo Balderas and Antoine R. Ivins
1889 M¨¡ori Ko Te Pukapuka a Moromona New Zealand [1]
1890 Dutch Het Boek van Mormon Netherlands, Flanders [1]
1903 Samoan O le Tusi a Mamona Samoa [1]
1904 Tahitian Te Buka a Moromona Tahiti [1]
1906 Turkish Mormon Kitabi'ndan Se?meler 1906 Armenian script version (now largely defunct); formerly used in present-day Eastern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and the U.S. [1] Currently out of print; first Asian language translation; selections in Roman script published in 1983; full text in Roman script published in 2001[4]
1909 Japanese ¥â¥ë¥â¥ó•ø Japan [1] most recent edition 2009
1933 Czech Kniha Mormonova Czech Republic [1]
1936 Braille (English) Braille ?.svg Braille B2.svgBraille O.svgBraille O.svgBraille K.svg Braille ?.svg Braille M.svgBraille O.svgBraille R.svgBraille M.svgBraille O.svgBraille N.svg [1] most recent edition 1994
1937 Armenian, Western Middle East, U.S., and elsewhere [5] 1937 complete edition currently out of print; new translation (selections only) published in 1983
1939 Portuguese O Livro de M¨®rmon Brazil, Portugal (also used in Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde) [1] most recent edition 1995
1946 Tongan Ko e Tohi ?a Molomona Tonga [1]
1950 Norwegian Mormons Bok Norway [1]
1954 Finnish Mormonin Kirja Finland [1]
1965 Chinese Ħ –éT½› Taiwan, Hong Kong, Southeast Asia [1]Retranslated in 2007 and changed name from ĦéT½› to Ħ –éT½›.
1965 Rarotongan (Cook Islands Maori) Te Puka a Momoni Cook Islands [1]
1967 Korean ??? Korea [1]
1972 Afrikaans Die Boek van Mormon South Africa [1] First African language edition
1976 Thai ?????????? ?????? Thailand [1] New translation completed, awaiting publication.
1977 Indonesian Kitab Mormon Indonesia [6]
1979 Croatian Mormonova Knjiga Croatia [1]
1980 Fijian Ai Vola i Momani Fiji [1]
1981 Catalan Spain [1]
1981 Icelandic Morm¨®nsb¨®k Iceland [1]
1981 Polish Ksi?ga Mormona Poland [1]
1981 Russian §¬§ß§Ú§Ô§Ñ §®§à§â§Þ§à§ß§Ñ Russia, Post-Soviet states, Eastern Europe, [1]
1982 Hindi ?????? ?????????? India [1]
1982 Vietnamese S¨¢ch M?c M?n Vietnam [1]
1983 Q'eqchi' (Kekchi) Lix Hu Laj Mormon Belize, Guatemala [1]
1986 Arabic ???? ?????? [1]
1986 Aymara Mormonan Kellkatapa Peru, Bolivia [1]
1987 Greek ¦³¦Ï ¦¢¦É¦Â¦Ë¦É¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦¬¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í Greece [1]
1988 Hebrew Israel RLDS translation [7], Selections published by LDS in 1982[8]
1991 Hungarian Mormon K?nyve Hungary [1]
1995 Braille (Spanish) [1]
1995 Ilokano Ti Libro ni Mormon Philippines [1]
1997 Ukrainian §¬§ß§Ú§Ô§Ñ §®§à§â§Þ§à§ß§Ñ Ukraine [9]
1998 Cebuano Ang Basahon ni Mormon Philippines Selections published in 1992[4]
1998 Pangasinan Say Libro nen Mormon Philippines [4]
1998 Romanian Cartea lui Mormon Romania [4]
1998 Tagalog Ang Aklat ni Mormon Philippines [4]
1999 Bulgarian §¬§ß§Ú§Ô§Ñ§ä§Ñ §ß§Ñ §®§à§â§Þ§à§ß Bulgaria [10] selections published in 1980
1999 Albanian Libri i Mormonit Albania [10]
1999 Fante Mormon Nwoma No Ghana [11]
1999 Haitian Creole Liv M¨°man An Haiti [12] selections published in 1983
1999 Shona Bhuku Ramorimoni Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana Selections published in 1988[4]
2000 Estonian Mormoni Raamat Estonia [13]
2000 Hmong Phau Ntawv Maumoos Southeast Asia [14] selections published in 1983
2000 Malagasy Ny Bokin'i Mormona Madagascar [15] selections published in 1983
2000 Swahili Kitabu cha Mormoni East sub-Saharan Africa [15]
2000 Amharic, East Mets'hafe Mormon Ethiopia, Eritrea [15]
2000 Latvian Mormona Gr¨¡mata Latvia [15]
2000 Lithuanian Mormono Knyga Lithuania [15]
2000 Ibo (Igbo) Akw?kw? nke Mom?n Nigeria [16]
2000 Xhosa Incwadi ka Mormoni South Africa [15]
2000 Telugu image of title (please transcribe) India [4]Selections published in 1982
Oct 2000 Amharic Mets'hafe Mormon North Central Ethiopia by the Amhara [17]
Dec 2000 Armenian, Eastern Eastern Armenian is spoken in the Caucasus Mountains (particularly in the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as well as Georgia) and by the Armenian community in Iran. Due to migrations of speakers from Armenia and Iran to the Armenian Diaspora, the dialect is now very prominent in countries and regions where only Western Armenian was used. It was developed in the early 19th century and is based on the dialect of the Ararat district (of Eastern Armenia). [18]
2001 Khmer (Cambodian) ???????????????? Cambodia Selections published in 1982
2001 Chinese (Simplified characters) ĦÞ­ China, Southeast Asia Selections published in 1982
2001 American Sign Language United States, Canada [19] on DVD; selections produced on VHS in 1995
2001 Mongolian §®§à§â§Þ§à§ß§í §¯§à§Þ Mongolia [20] most recent edition 2008
2001 Kiribati (Gilbertese) Ana Boki Moomon Kiribati [4]Selections published in 1988
2002 Slovene Mormonova Knjiga Slovenia [4]
2002 Neomelanesian (Tok Pisin) Buk Momon Papua New Guinea [4]
2003 Tswana Buka ya ga Momone Botswana [16]
2003 Zulu Incwadi Kamormoni South Africa, Zimbabwe [16] selections published in 1987
2003 Marshallese Bok in Mormon Marshall Islands [4]Selections published in 1984
2004 Bislama Buk Blong Momon Vanuatu [4]Selections published in 1985
2004 Lingala Buku ya Molomoni Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo [16] selections published in 1998
2004 Yapese Fare Babyou ku Mormon Federated States of Micronesia [4]
2005 Twi Mormon Nwoma no Ghana [16]
2005 Tamil India, Sri Lanka [4]Selections published in 1982
2005 Hiligaynon (Ilonggo) Tulun-an ni Mormon Philippines [21] selections published in 1994
2007 Urdu Incwadi Ka Mormoni Pakistan, India [22] Selections published in 1988
2007 Serbian §®§à§â§Þ§à§ß§à§Ó§Ñ §¬?§Ú§Ô§Ñ Serbia [4]
2007 Yoruba Iwe ti Momoni Nigeria, Benin, Togo [4]
2008 Sinhala Sri Lanka [4]
2009 Guaran¨ª Mormon Kuatia?e' e Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil [23] selections published in 1982

I know that our sole communication have been about how wonderful your reviews are, but this book is so dear to me and I couldn't resist to say this for the n-th: excellent review.

Though brought up as an Christian Orthodox, I'm still searching for my self, but I can say that your and Tatiana's understanding of Christianity is baffling and I almost totally agree with you.

As you brought up the passive aggressive topic, I urge you to take a look (if you haven't already) to Tolstoy's "The Kingdom Of God Is Within You". It has a lot of common with your understanding. It shows how Christ showed humanity a new way of life that corresponds with the basic human consciousness that everyone of us have inside, something that doesn't need miracles to prove, neither for someone to be the Son of God. I am currently reading the book and totally amazed by it. I would like to hear about it from someone like you my GR friend.

Tatiana. Do you know a website where I can download the Armenian version?

I don't think all the languages are online yet. to a news release back in 2001 when the Eastern Armenian version first came out. PM me your street address and I'll mail one to you, along with the original English (so you can check if the translation is good).

Or you can in any language you like. Let them know if you just want one in the mail, or if you'd like missionaries to bring it to you. It's according to your wishes.

I take that back. In many Muslim countries Christian missionaries aren't allowed yet, and that may the be case where you are. In that case, they'd probably just mail it to you, or I'd be glad to.

Manny, as you know I have just arrived here from Flaubert's Parrot, so this review and the comments have been quite enlightening.
I put your review in the god-like genius category. Congratulations.
Can I make a comment about the multiple narrators and the narrative conflicts between them.
I don't know exactly when any of the Apostles started to believe that Christ was the Son of God or, in your terms, an alien, during his lifetime.
I assume that it dates from the Transfiguration of Christ, which was witnessed by Peter, James and John.
What I don't know is the duration from this point to his Crucifixion and Resurrection.
I assume that it was only shortly before the Crucifixion, because more or less straight away Christ asked Peter, James and John to keep his divinity a secret until after he had been resurrected ("the Messianic Secret").
So I am guessing that the Apostles would have just treated Jesus as an ordinary mortal during most of his lifetime, and it was only a short period during his lifetime during which he was believed to be divine.
There doesn't appear to have been any major reason for them to keep detailed notes of all of his conversations and pronouncements, at least up until the Transfiguration.
So it's not surprising that their recollections differ, assuming they weren't all just made up.
BTW, I went to an Anglican secondary school named St Paul's.
We were taught a very positive view of St Paul, and it's been interesting to see all of the bad press he has received subsequently.

Seems Manny is not following this discussion anymore.

Carlo wrote: "Seems Manny is not following this discussion anymore."

Ah, sorry, I've just been so engrossed with cosmology the last couple of weeks. Old Testament stuff, you know... it is quite fascinating!

I received an offline communication from Dave (comment #36), who told me that, according to the latest research, the second half of the New Testament was written after the first. I had never even heard of this theory, which brings home to me the fact that I am not, alas, much of a bible scholar. But I shall post again if I am granted any more divine revelations :)

great review manny, reminds me of umberto ecos review of the bible in "diario minimo" (but yours is better!).

Thank you Dietmar! I hadn't heard of the Eco piece... will look for it!

Manny wrote: "I received an offline communication from Dave (comment #36), who told me that, according to the latest research, the second half of the New Testament was written after the first. I had never even heard of this theory, which brings home to me the fact that I am not, alas, much of a bible scholar. But I shall post again if I am granted any more divine revelations :) "

I haven't heard that theory before.

Most scholars believe that Paul's letters (at least the ones actually written by him) were written sometime between fifty and sixty AD/CE, and that the gospels, beginning with Mark, then Matthew or Luke, and ending with John, were written between 60 and 100.

Paul could have interfered with the texts for all we know.

Great review, by the way.

Thank you Gabriel, I really must read up on my Bible history!

"A wonderfully ambitious science fiction novel"

If you thought this was good sci-fi, you should check out the Book of Mormon sometime...