What do you think?
Rate this book
King Jesus
King Jesus, long out of print, is one of the most controversial historical novels of all time. In it, Robert Graves has summoned his superb narrative powers, his painstaking scholarship, his wit and unsurpassed ability to recreate the past, to produce a magnificant portrayal of the life of Christ on earth.
424 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
140 people are currently reading
2156 people want to read
About the author
Robert Graves
637 books2,057 followersRobert von Ranke Graves was an English poet, soldier, historical novelist and critic. Born in Wimbledon, he received his early education at King's College School and Copthorne Prep School, Wimbledon & Charterhouse School and won a scholarship to St John's College, Oxford. While at Charterhouse in 1912, he fell in love with G.H. Johnstone, a boy of fourteen ("Dick" in Goodbye to All That) When challenged by the headmaster he defended himself by citing Plato, Greek poets, Michelangelo & Shakespeare, "who had felt as I did".
At the outbreak of WWI, Graves enlisted almost immediately, taking a commission in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He published his first volume of poems, Over the Brazier, in 1916. He developed an early reputation as a war poet and was one of the first to write realistic poems about his experience of front line conflict. In later years he omitted war poems from his collections, on the grounds that they were too obviously "part of the war poetry boom". At the Battle of the Somme he was so badly wounded by a shell-fragment through the lung that he was expected to die, and indeed was officially reported as 'died of wounds'. He gradually recovered. Apart from a brief spell back in France, he spent the rest of the war in England.
One of Graves's closest friends at this time was the poet Siegfried Sassoon, who was also an officer in the RWF. In 1917 Sassoon tried to rebel against the war by making a public anti-war statement. Graves, who feared Sassoon could face a court martial, intervened with the military authorities and persuaded them that he was suffering from shell shock, and to treat him accordingly. Graves also suffered from shell shock, or neurasthenia as it is sometimes called, although he was never hospitalised for it.
Biographers document the story well. It is fictionalised in Pat Barker's novel Regeneration. The intensity of their early relationship is nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in Graves's collection Fairies & Fusiliers (1917), which contains a plethora of poems celebrating their friendship. Through Sassoon, he also became friends with Wilfred Owen, whose talent he recognised. Owen attended Graves's wedding to Nancy Nicholson in 1918, presenting him with, as Graves recalled, "a set of 12 Apostle spoons".
Following his marriage and the end of the war, Graves belatedly took up his place at St John's College, Oxford. He later attempted to make a living by running a small shop, but the business failed. In 1926 he took up a post at Cairo University, accompanied by his wife, their children and the poet Laura Riding. He returned to London briefly, where he split with his wife under highly emotional circumstances before leaving to live with Riding in Deià, Majorca. There they continued to publish letterpress books under the rubric of the Seizin Press, founded and edited the literary journal Epilogue, and wrote two successful academic books together: A Survey of Modernist Poetry (1927) and A Pamphlet Against Anthologies (1928).
In 1927, he published Lawrence and the Arabs, a commercially successful biography of T.E. Lawrence. Good-bye to All That (1929, revised and republished in 1957) proved a success but cost him many of his friends, notably Sassoon. In 1934 he published his most commercially successful work, I, Claudius. Using classical sources he constructed a complexly compelling tale of the life of the Roman emperor Claudius, a tale extended in Claudius the God (1935). Another historical novel by Graves, Count Belisarius (1938), recounts the career of the Byzantine general Belisarius.
During the early 1970s Graves began to suffer from increasingly severe memory loss, and by his eightieth birthday in 1975 he had come to the end of his working life. By 1975 he had published more than 140 works. He survived for ten more years in an increasingly dependent condition until he died from heart
At the outbreak of WWI, Graves enlisted almost immediately, taking a commission in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He published his first volume of poems, Over the Brazier, in 1916. He developed an early reputation as a war poet and was one of the first to write realistic poems about his experience of front line conflict. In later years he omitted war poems from his collections, on the grounds that they were too obviously "part of the war poetry boom". At the Battle of the Somme he was so badly wounded by a shell-fragment through the lung that he was expected to die, and indeed was officially reported as 'died of wounds'. He gradually recovered. Apart from a brief spell back in France, he spent the rest of the war in England.
One of Graves's closest friends at this time was the poet Siegfried Sassoon, who was also an officer in the RWF. In 1917 Sassoon tried to rebel against the war by making a public anti-war statement. Graves, who feared Sassoon could face a court martial, intervened with the military authorities and persuaded them that he was suffering from shell shock, and to treat him accordingly. Graves also suffered from shell shock, or neurasthenia as it is sometimes called, although he was never hospitalised for it.
Biographers document the story well. It is fictionalised in Pat Barker's novel Regeneration. The intensity of their early relationship is nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in Graves's collection Fairies & Fusiliers (1917), which contains a plethora of poems celebrating their friendship. Through Sassoon, he also became friends with Wilfred Owen, whose talent he recognised. Owen attended Graves's wedding to Nancy Nicholson in 1918, presenting him with, as Graves recalled, "a set of 12 Apostle spoons".
Following his marriage and the end of the war, Graves belatedly took up his place at St John's College, Oxford. He later attempted to make a living by running a small shop, but the business failed. In 1926 he took up a post at Cairo University, accompanied by his wife, their children and the poet Laura Riding. He returned to London briefly, where he split with his wife under highly emotional circumstances before leaving to live with Riding in Deià, Majorca. There they continued to publish letterpress books under the rubric of the Seizin Press, founded and edited the literary journal Epilogue, and wrote two successful academic books together: A Survey of Modernist Poetry (1927) and A Pamphlet Against Anthologies (1928).
In 1927, he published Lawrence and the Arabs, a commercially successful biography of T.E. Lawrence. Good-bye to All That (1929, revised and republished in 1957) proved a success but cost him many of his friends, notably Sassoon. In 1934 he published his most commercially successful work, I, Claudius. Using classical sources he constructed a complexly compelling tale of the life of the Roman emperor Claudius, a tale extended in Claudius the God (1935). Another historical novel by Graves, Count Belisarius (1938), recounts the career of the Byzantine general Belisarius.
During the early 1970s Graves began to suffer from increasingly severe memory loss, and by his eightieth birthday in 1975 he had come to the end of his working life. By 1975 he had published more than 140 works. He survived for ten more years in an increasingly dependent condition until he died from heart
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
March 9, 2013
Robert Graves gives this work of historical fiction an intriguing premise. He presents Jesus not as the offspring of a divine being, born of a virgin birth, but as the very mortal son of Mary and Antipater, the eldest son of King Herod the Great. Herod had a nasty tendency to eliminate family members who crossed him without much of a hearing. Antipater fell victim to this paranoia, and was executed just before Herod’s death. Antipater’s death left Jesus as the rightful heir to the terrestrial kingdom of Judaea, based on his descent from Herod. Mary’s descent from the House of David just served to solidify Jesus’s position.
King Herod the Great/Wicked - Grandfather of Jesus? (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Jesus didn’t learn any of this until much later, of course, and grew up thinking Joseph the carpenter was his father. He is depicted as initially a scriptural prodigy, then later a man of great learning, a philosopher, a charismatic speaker, and a prophet. Arguably he fulfills several of the different Messianic prophecies, but Graves’s Jesus does not put himself forward as the Son of God.
Graves is at his best in discussing the circumstances of Jesus’s arrest and trial. He knows his Roman politics, and this section reads like it could be a chapter of I, Claudius. Judas gets a sympathetic portrayal, appearing to be a victim of political manipulation rather than a traitorous tool of Fate. Pontius Pilate is a sly political schemer, and he can’t quite get off the hook by placing the blame for Jesus’s death on Jewish elders. He has too much at stake, with the implications that a Jesus as King of the Jews/Israel would have for the Roman Empire.
Pontius Pilate conveniently washing his hands of the Jesus problem. (Source: Wikipedia Italia)
The story has some wilder elements, such as showing Mary Magdalene as a sort of witch leading a goddess-worshipping cult. Graves ties a lot of mythological features together, drawing interesting parallels from Judaism to Greek, Egyptian, and other mythologies, but sometimes he seems to be stretching it a bit. In his Historical Commentary, Graves writes, “I undertake to my readers that every important element in my story is based on some tradition, however tenuous, and that I have taken more than ordinary pains to verify my historical background.” The result is a thought-provoking look at a familiar story from an unusual angle.
King Herod the Great/Wicked - Grandfather of Jesus? (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Jesus didn’t learn any of this until much later, of course, and grew up thinking Joseph the carpenter was his father. He is depicted as initially a scriptural prodigy, then later a man of great learning, a philosopher, a charismatic speaker, and a prophet. Arguably he fulfills several of the different Messianic prophecies, but Graves’s Jesus does not put himself forward as the Son of God.
Graves is at his best in discussing the circumstances of Jesus’s arrest and trial. He knows his Roman politics, and this section reads like it could be a chapter of I, Claudius. Judas gets a sympathetic portrayal, appearing to be a victim of political manipulation rather than a traitorous tool of Fate. Pontius Pilate is a sly political schemer, and he can’t quite get off the hook by placing the blame for Jesus’s death on Jewish elders. He has too much at stake, with the implications that a Jesus as King of the Jews/Israel would have for the Roman Empire.
Pontius Pilate conveniently washing his hands of the Jesus problem. (Source: Wikipedia Italia)
The story has some wilder elements, such as showing Mary Magdalene as a sort of witch leading a goddess-worshipping cult. Graves ties a lot of mythological features together, drawing interesting parallels from Judaism to Greek, Egyptian, and other mythologies, but sometimes he seems to be stretching it a bit. In his Historical Commentary, Graves writes, “I undertake to my readers that every important element in my story is based on some tradition, however tenuous, and that I have taken more than ordinary pains to verify my historical background.” The result is a thought-provoking look at a familiar story from an unusual angle.
April 20, 2016
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given
O four stars of wonder, five stars of night,
Stars with royal beauty bright,
Westward leading, still proceeding,
Guide us to thy perfect light.
It was amazing. Lying in bed. The kids all tucked in. Christmas Eve, and I'm reading 'King Jesus'. I finally put this sucker to bed last night at about 1:00 am. Sugar plums weren't dancing in my head ... rather parables and planets (Ninib, Marduk, Nergal) and Essenes (אִסִּיִים), oh my, floated and danced in my head as I fell into a deep Christmas slumber.
Robert Graves brilliantly dances in that zone between myth and reality, between poetry and prose, between belief and unbelief with 'King Jesus'. I can certainly understand how both believers and nonbelievers might feel a bit robbed by Graves FICTIONAL (let's not forget that Robert Graves was writing historical, speculative, FICTION here) account of the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. But for me at least, Graves treatment of King Jesus was amazing (I'll let this review float between four and five stars, so that last star almost twinkles). Historically, the life of Jesus leaves a lot of room (In my Father's house are many mansions) for someone with a bit of audacity to fill in the blanks and gaps.
I really can't think of many other writers (maybe Mann, Mantel, Frazer, Tolstoy?) who might have done a better job with Jesus. Anyway, 'King Jesus' is bold, inventive, messy, and beautiful. Graves was not intending this novel to push any one religious dogma (Catholic, Protestant, etc). So, casual or sensitive readers beware, because by Graves' own admission his "solution to the problem of Jesus's nativity implies a rejection of the mystical Virgin Birth doctrine." While Graves novel allows for mysticism and divinity, he is looking at Jesus from a very unOrthodox and speculative perspective. But, given the thousands of different Christian dogmas that exist ... he is not the only one who has created a damn good story out of the fragments of truth that we possess about this amazing and brave and holy Son of Mary.
O four stars of wonder, five stars of night,
Stars with royal beauty bright,
Westward leading, still proceeding,
Guide us to thy perfect light.
It was amazing. Lying in bed. The kids all tucked in. Christmas Eve, and I'm reading 'King Jesus'. I finally put this sucker to bed last night at about 1:00 am. Sugar plums weren't dancing in my head ... rather parables and planets (Ninib, Marduk, Nergal) and Essenes (אִסִּיִים), oh my, floated and danced in my head as I fell into a deep Christmas slumber.
Robert Graves brilliantly dances in that zone between myth and reality, between poetry and prose, between belief and unbelief with 'King Jesus'. I can certainly understand how both believers and nonbelievers might feel a bit robbed by Graves FICTIONAL (let's not forget that Robert Graves was writing historical, speculative, FICTION here) account of the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. But for me at least, Graves treatment of King Jesus was amazing (I'll let this review float between four and five stars, so that last star almost twinkles). Historically, the life of Jesus leaves a lot of room (In my Father's house are many mansions) for someone with a bit of audacity to fill in the blanks and gaps.
I really can't think of many other writers (maybe Mann, Mantel, Frazer, Tolstoy?) who might have done a better job with Jesus. Anyway, 'King Jesus' is bold, inventive, messy, and beautiful. Graves was not intending this novel to push any one religious dogma (Catholic, Protestant, etc). So, casual or sensitive readers beware, because by Graves' own admission his "solution to the problem of Jesus's nativity implies a rejection of the mystical Virgin Birth doctrine." While Graves novel allows for mysticism and divinity, he is looking at Jesus from a very unOrthodox and speculative perspective. But, given the thousands of different Christian dogmas that exist ... he is not the only one who has created a damn good story out of the fragments of truth that we possess about this amazing and brave and holy Son of Mary.
January 23, 2024
3.5*, arredondadas para cima
Depois de I, Claudius e de Claudius the God and his wife Messalina, tinha grandes expectativas para este livro. Rei Jesus conta a história de Cristo como personagem histórica e não como filho de Deus, o que, como seria de esperar, causou grande controvérsia na altura da sua publicação em 1946 no Reino Unido (em Portugal só seria traduzido em 2007!). No entanto, tive bastante dificuldade em seguir a narrativa, e acredito que o mesmo suceda a leitores que, como eu, não tenham um conhecimento acima da média da história antiga do Médio Oriente e da Bíblia.
Graves apresenta-nos Jesus como o herdeiro legítimo ao trono do reino de Israel. Ele seria filho de Antipater, o filho mais velho do rei Herodes e da sua primeira mulher, Doris. Segundo a lei de Roma, que na época estendia até aqui o seu império, ele teria direito ao trono, por ser o único filho, do filho primogénito de Herodes. E segundo a lei judaica ele tinha o mesmo direito, mas por razões diferentes, que se prendiam com o facto de Maria, sua mãe, ser descendente da casa de Mical, a casa governante da época, e os judeus da antiguidade seguirem uma descendência matrilinear.
A parte inicial do livro, com intermináveis genealogias e referências históricas e bíblicas deixaram-me completamente perdida e quase me levaram a desistir. Mas lá persisti, e gostei bastante da parte central do livro, que descreve o reino de Herodes, a tragédia de Antipater e o nascimento e juventude de Jesus. Há aqui uma mistura de ficção, citações de documentos históricos e passagens bíblicas que estão muito bem urdidas e resultam numa narrativa extremamente interessante. Depois voltei a perder-me, as referências a mitologias e cultos antigos de deusas femininas às quais Jesus supostamente se opunha de forma feroz, e por arrastamento, à demonização das mulheres, vistas como fonte de todos os males, o que também não ajudou.
Com mais de 500 páginas, foi uma leitura cheia de altos e baixos – partes penosas de tão incompreensíveis, onde o avanço foi lento e difícil, e outras tão apelativas que as páginas passavam a voar. Decididamente, vou ter de me atirar à Bíblia, até porque este ano quero ler o Moby Dick e não quero entrar nele tão ignorante como entrei neste Rei Jesus :D
Depois de I, Claudius e de Claudius the God and his wife Messalina, tinha grandes expectativas para este livro. Rei Jesus conta a história de Cristo como personagem histórica e não como filho de Deus, o que, como seria de esperar, causou grande controvérsia na altura da sua publicação em 1946 no Reino Unido (em Portugal só seria traduzido em 2007!). No entanto, tive bastante dificuldade em seguir a narrativa, e acredito que o mesmo suceda a leitores que, como eu, não tenham um conhecimento acima da média da história antiga do Médio Oriente e da Bíblia.
Graves apresenta-nos Jesus como o herdeiro legítimo ao trono do reino de Israel. Ele seria filho de Antipater, o filho mais velho do rei Herodes e da sua primeira mulher, Doris. Segundo a lei de Roma, que na época estendia até aqui o seu império, ele teria direito ao trono, por ser o único filho, do filho primogénito de Herodes. E segundo a lei judaica ele tinha o mesmo direito, mas por razões diferentes, que se prendiam com o facto de Maria, sua mãe, ser descendente da casa de Mical, a casa governante da época, e os judeus da antiguidade seguirem uma descendência matrilinear.
A parte inicial do livro, com intermináveis genealogias e referências históricas e bíblicas deixaram-me completamente perdida e quase me levaram a desistir. Mas lá persisti, e gostei bastante da parte central do livro, que descreve o reino de Herodes, a tragédia de Antipater e o nascimento e juventude de Jesus. Há aqui uma mistura de ficção, citações de documentos históricos e passagens bíblicas que estão muito bem urdidas e resultam numa narrativa extremamente interessante. Depois voltei a perder-me, as referências a mitologias e cultos antigos de deusas femininas às quais Jesus supostamente se opunha de forma feroz, e por arrastamento, à demonização das mulheres, vistas como fonte de todos os males, o que também não ajudou.
Com mais de 500 páginas, foi uma leitura cheia de altos e baixos – partes penosas de tão incompreensíveis, onde o avanço foi lento e difícil, e outras tão apelativas que as páginas passavam a voar. Decididamente, vou ter de me atirar à Bíblia, até porque este ano quero ler o Moby Dick e não quero entrar nele tão ignorante como entrei neste Rei Jesus :D
May 24, 2015
This is by far my favorite Robert Graves novel--and I like his historical novels very much generally. My original copy was the one published by the Readers Digest Press in hardcover.
As once a bit of a scholar of the gospel narratives and ancillary texts, I was struck by the way Graves plausibly weaved together strands of tradition to reconstruct an historical Jesus with a temporal right to the throne of Judaea and, thus, a Jesus who actually constituted enough of a threat to the Empire and temple establishment as to lead to his public execution. Virtually every paragraph could be footnoted to ancient sources.
Having read a lot of literary recreations of Jesus what struck me most forcefully was how, unlike almost all others, Graves' Jesus is not represented as some inspired backwoods Galilean. Instead, early on he establishes Jesus as an extremely well educated man, cosmopolitan in his learning and interests.
Note: The historicity of Grave's portrayal, while well-founded on textual evidence, is highly suspect just as many of the ancient sources are. Graves' thesis is that Mary, prior to her betrothal to Joseph, did her stint as a holy prostitute in the temple of the Goddess. While there she was impregnated by one of the sons of Miriamne, wife of Herod the Great. Miriamne was, of course, Herod's, an Idumaean prince, link to legitimacy as she was the last of the Hasmonaeans (aka Maccabees) and, so, Jesus was descended by blood from the last royal line of the Jews.
Now some ancient sources do, in fact, talk about proper young girls serving the Goddess (Ishtar, Astarte, etc.) in the region in this way. But, although the gospels do make reference to the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as in the baptism story in Mark, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence that proper young Jewish girls served as temple prostitutes. This is quite a stretch for Graves to make but quite in keeping with his own, personal obsession with the sacrality of sexual union, a theme repeated in Jesus' own sacred marriage in the novel.
As once a bit of a scholar of the gospel narratives and ancillary texts, I was struck by the way Graves plausibly weaved together strands of tradition to reconstruct an historical Jesus with a temporal right to the throne of Judaea and, thus, a Jesus who actually constituted enough of a threat to the Empire and temple establishment as to lead to his public execution. Virtually every paragraph could be footnoted to ancient sources.
Having read a lot of literary recreations of Jesus what struck me most forcefully was how, unlike almost all others, Graves' Jesus is not represented as some inspired backwoods Galilean. Instead, early on he establishes Jesus as an extremely well educated man, cosmopolitan in his learning and interests.
Note: The historicity of Grave's portrayal, while well-founded on textual evidence, is highly suspect just as many of the ancient sources are. Graves' thesis is that Mary, prior to her betrothal to Joseph, did her stint as a holy prostitute in the temple of the Goddess. While there she was impregnated by one of the sons of Miriamne, wife of Herod the Great. Miriamne was, of course, Herod's, an Idumaean prince, link to legitimacy as she was the last of the Hasmonaeans (aka Maccabees) and, so, Jesus was descended by blood from the last royal line of the Jews.
Now some ancient sources do, in fact, talk about proper young girls serving the Goddess (Ishtar, Astarte, etc.) in the region in this way. But, although the gospels do make reference to the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as in the baptism story in Mark, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence that proper young Jewish girls served as temple prostitutes. This is quite a stretch for Graves to make but quite in keeping with his own, personal obsession with the sacrality of sexual union, a theme repeated in Jesus' own sacred marriage in the novel.
May 17, 2016
Όπως ο Καζαντζάκης στο ‘Τελευταίο Πειρασμό’ κ ο Σαραμαγκου στο ‘Κατά Ιησουν Ευαγγέλιον’’ έτσι κ ο Robert Graves εξιστορεί το δικό του αφήγημα με επίκεντρο την ζωή και τα έργα του Ιησού Χριστού, βασισμένο σε ενδελεχή ιστορική ερευνά όχι μόνο στα επίσημα κ ανεπίσημα Ευαγγέλια και την Βίβλο, αλλά λαμβάνοντας υπόψη κ της Μυθολογία και τις Θρησκευτικές παραδόσεις των αρχαίων Εθνών πριν την έλευση του ‘’Μεσσία’’ .. Συνοπτικά, ο Ιησούς παρουσιάζεται ως Βασιλικός γόνος κ εγγονός του μοχθηρού Ηρώδη και νόμιμος διάδοχος του Θρόνου, ωστόσο ο ίδιος ουδόλως ενδιαφέρεται γ τα πρωτοτόκια, αντιθέτως ενσαρκώνει την έλευση του Μεσσία εκπληρώνοντας την προφητεία του Ησαΐα κατά την οποία θα πρέπει να σταυρωθεί ως Καταραμένος και ‘Ανάξιος Ποιμένας’ γ να μνημονεύεται έπειτα το όνομα αυτού κ του Θεού από τους άπιστους κ παραστρατημένους ανθρώπους
..Όντας Βρετανός κ έχοντας ως αντίπαλο ή σύμμαχο περισσότερο τον τελικό αναγνώστη κ λιγότερο –όπως οι έτεροι μυθιστοριογράφοι- το Εθνικό Εκκλησιαστικό δόγμα κ τους έμμισθους ζηλωτές του, μάλλον είχε και τις λιγότερες αντιδράσεις μετά την έκδοση του βιβλίου του ..Άριστος γνωστής των Εβραϊκών, Αιγυπτιακών, Ελληνικών μύθων, λαϊκών παραδόσεων, παγανιστικών εθίμων κ της Ιστορίας κάθε Αρχαίου τόπου, επιτυγχάνει μια εξαιρετική Αναπαράσταση της εποχής όπου όσα συμβαίνουν είναι αποτέλεσμα όχι μόνο της ιδιαίτατης Ιστορικής στιγμής και των σχέσεων εξουσίας που αναπτύσσονται μεταξύ των κυρίως λαών –Ρωμαίων κ Ιουδαίων εν προκειμένω- αλλά και απόρροια των Θρησκευτικών Μυθων πολλών λαών, των ζυμώσεων τους στο πέρας του Χρόνου, των προσμίξεων τους με λοιπές Λαϊκές κ Θρησκευτικές παραδόσεις κ.ο.κ. ..ο Graves πέρα από ένας εξαιρετικός γνώστης και αναγνώστης της Ιστορίας κ της Παράδοσης είναι κ ένας ικανότατος μυσταγωγός με απώτατο σκοπό το απολαυστικό ταξίδι της ανάγνωσης κ την αμφιβολία της κατασκευασμένης κ δογματικής ερμηνείας κ αληθείας ..Αντιτίθεται σε κάθε δογματισμό, εργάζεται μεθοδικά γ την Ιστορική αποδόμηση του και αδιαφορεί για την δημιουργία ενός νέου
Υ.Γ. 1. Πολλές φορές το βιβλίο κουράζει με τις αμέτρητες πληροφορίες, με τα μυθικά πρόσωπα και τις Βιβλικές αναφορές που παρουσιάζονται και ειναι αγνωστες στον μη μυημενο αναγνωστη ..Ένα βιβλίο που θα λειτουργει και ως βοηθημα και θα αναφέρει επιγραμματικά κ συνοπτικά τα άνωθεν θα ήταν χρηστικό καθώς το βιβλιο είναι απαιτητικό κ παρουσιάζει δυσκολίες στην ανάγνωση του ..Ενδεικτικά προτείνονται οι ‘Μεγάλοι Μύστες’ κ το ‘Λεξικό των Θρησκειων’
2. Το βιβλίο βρίθει ορθογραφικών λαθών κ η επανακυκλοφορία του με την αντιστοιχη επιμέλεια, σημειώσεις οπου χρειαζεται κ χάρτες καθίσταται αναγκαίο.. Αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια ωστόσο στον μεταφραστή διότι η μετάφραση ενός έργου του Graves απαιτεί αταλάντευτη επίμονη, προσωπική γνώση κ απλετο χρονο, ανοιχτούς ορίζοντες κ πάνω από όλα αγάπη γ το εργο και το προσωπικο υφος του συγγραφέα
..Όντας Βρετανός κ έχοντας ως αντίπαλο ή σύμμαχο περισσότερο τον τελικό αναγνώστη κ λιγότερο –όπως οι έτεροι μυθιστοριογράφοι- το Εθνικό Εκκλησιαστικό δόγμα κ τους έμμισθους ζηλωτές του, μάλλον είχε και τις λιγότερες αντιδράσεις μετά την έκδοση του βιβλίου του ..Άριστος γνωστής των Εβραϊκών, Αιγυπτιακών, Ελληνικών μύθων, λαϊκών παραδόσεων, παγανιστικών εθίμων κ της Ιστορίας κάθε Αρχαίου τόπου, επιτυγχάνει μια εξαιρετική Αναπαράσταση της εποχής όπου όσα συμβαίνουν είναι αποτέλεσμα όχι μόνο της ιδιαίτατης Ιστορικής στιγμής και των σχέσεων εξουσίας που αναπτύσσονται μεταξύ των κυρίως λαών –Ρωμαίων κ Ιουδαίων εν προκειμένω- αλλά και απόρροια των Θρησκευτικών Μυθων πολλών λαών, των ζυμώσεων τους στο πέρας του Χρόνου, των προσμίξεων τους με λοιπές Λαϊκές κ Θρησκευτικές παραδόσεις κ.ο.κ. ..ο Graves πέρα από ένας εξαιρετικός γνώστης και αναγνώστης της Ιστορίας κ της Παράδοσης είναι κ ένας ικανότατος μυσταγωγός με απώτατο σκοπό το απολαυστικό ταξίδι της ανάγνωσης κ την αμφιβολία της κατασκευασμένης κ δογματικής ερμηνείας κ αληθείας ..Αντιτίθεται σε κάθε δογματισμό, εργάζεται μεθοδικά γ την Ιστορική αποδόμηση του και αδιαφορεί για την δημιουργία ενός νέου
Υ.Γ. 1. Πολλές φορές το βιβλίο κουράζει με τις αμέτρητες πληροφορίες, με τα μυθικά πρόσωπα και τις Βιβλικές αναφορές που παρουσιάζονται και ειναι αγνωστες στον μη μυημενο αναγνωστη ..Ένα βιβλίο που θα λειτουργει και ως βοηθημα και θα αναφέρει επιγραμματικά κ συνοπτικά τα άνωθεν θα ήταν χρηστικό καθώς το βιβλιο είναι απαιτητικό κ παρουσιάζει δυσκολίες στην ανάγνωση του ..Ενδεικτικά προτείνονται οι ‘Μεγάλοι Μύστες’ κ το ‘Λεξικό των Θρησκειων’
2. Το βιβλίο βρίθει ορθογραφικών λαθών κ η επανακυκλοφορία του με την αντιστοιχη επιμέλεια, σημειώσεις οπου χρειαζεται κ χάρτες καθίσταται αναγκαίο.. Αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια ωστόσο στον μεταφραστή διότι η μετάφραση ενός έργου του Graves απαιτεί αταλάντευτη επίμονη, προσωπική γνώση κ απλετο χρονο, ανοιχτούς ορίζοντες κ πάνω από όλα αγάπη γ το εργο και το προσωπικο υφος του συγγραφέα
September 4, 2013
1 Christopherus, unto the church of Goodreads: peace be with you.
2 I write this epistle to you on the occasion of my completion of Robert Graves' scroll King Jesus, being an historical but also novelistic account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
3 Not having read his masterpiece, I, Claudius, or any of his other works, I was a virgin to his style of combining history with imagination; but having read this, I remain unimpressed.
4 The problem with King Jesus lies in the way it straddles the supernatural and the ordinary. Mr. Graves obviously does not believe that Jesus is the true Son of God and the messiah of the Jewish people, but neither does he present a Jesus that is perfectly ordinary and mundane.
5 He takes many pains in describing the conception and birth of Jesus: that he is the natural son of Mary and Antipater ben Herod, and thus the rightful heir to the throne of Judah.
6 And most of Jesus' miracles (as they are recorded in the canonical gospels) are mostly reduced to feats of illusion or masterful manipulation of the placebo effect (in the case of healings) or loose interpretations that confine those miracles to non-miraculous events.
7 But where this book becomes confusing is when supernatural events remain unexplained and unchallenged, as in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, which in function is identical to its counterpart in the Gospel of Luke.
8 I would ask of Mr. Graves: why go to such lengths to substitute for Jesus a human birth, but to excuse his superhuman resurrection from your academic scythe?
9 One other problem with King Jesus is its style of historical fiction. It is neither an academic work, nor a gripping work of fiction. It is too dry to be considered a fun novel and it is much too speculative to be considered a serious work of a scholar.
10 However, there were several moments in this narrative that kept me rapt. Most of these include the creative way that Mr. Graves can reinterpret and embellish familiar portions of Jesus' life.
11 Brethren (and sistren), you need not rush to your favorite independent bookstore or library to acquire and read this scroll. But if you are interested in reading a creative work about Jesus of Nazareth, there are several pieces here that will satisfy.
12 Farewell, brothers and sisters. Peace be with you all. Amen.
2 I write this epistle to you on the occasion of my completion of Robert Graves' scroll King Jesus, being an historical but also novelistic account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
3 Not having read his masterpiece, I, Claudius, or any of his other works, I was a virgin to his style of combining history with imagination; but having read this, I remain unimpressed.
4 The problem with King Jesus lies in the way it straddles the supernatural and the ordinary. Mr. Graves obviously does not believe that Jesus is the true Son of God and the messiah of the Jewish people, but neither does he present a Jesus that is perfectly ordinary and mundane.
5 He takes many pains in describing the conception and birth of Jesus: that he is the natural son of Mary and Antipater ben Herod, and thus the rightful heir to the throne of Judah.
6 And most of Jesus' miracles (as they are recorded in the canonical gospels) are mostly reduced to feats of illusion or masterful manipulation of the placebo effect (in the case of healings) or loose interpretations that confine those miracles to non-miraculous events.
7 But where this book becomes confusing is when supernatural events remain unexplained and unchallenged, as in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, which in function is identical to its counterpart in the Gospel of Luke.
8 I would ask of Mr. Graves: why go to such lengths to substitute for Jesus a human birth, but to excuse his superhuman resurrection from your academic scythe?
9 One other problem with King Jesus is its style of historical fiction. It is neither an academic work, nor a gripping work of fiction. It is too dry to be considered a fun novel and it is much too speculative to be considered a serious work of a scholar.
10 However, there were several moments in this narrative that kept me rapt. Most of these include the creative way that Mr. Graves can reinterpret and embellish familiar portions of Jesus' life.
11 Brethren (and sistren), you need not rush to your favorite independent bookstore or library to acquire and read this scroll. But if you are interested in reading a creative work about Jesus of Nazareth, there are several pieces here that will satisfy.
12 Farewell, brothers and sisters. Peace be with you all. Amen.
October 26, 2020
Ladies and gentlemen, the review of this book is complicated and I am sure that many people will take their hands to their heads when they see that I have put 1 star in a book written by the acclaimed author of"I Claudius" or "Claudio the God and hiswife Mesalina", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.filmaffinity.com/es/film8... which resulted in a magnificent miniseries. So many users might think fonch has gone crazy and some might think that by what right I do it. I'm not worth the answer of a famous Wrestler or wrestling fighter who says "becauseI'm such and I'm the most."
Robert Graves looks like a poet and a true artist to me. In a sense it reminds me of Father Brown's character (well in particular it reminds me of two characters of Father Brown) one of them is Leonard Quinton the poet of the story of "TheErquivocal Form" and also that mystical fatalist trickster named John Strake inthe "'Lay Dagger' https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Personally I have had the opportunity to read several robert Graves books and have found myself absolutely everything. A novel that I love as is"Count Belisario" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (being honest to me I almost like it more than "I Claudio" although I understand that most of the public consider the duology of the emperor of the Julius-Claudius dynasty superior to that of the Byzantine general. In my honor it is said that among my many passions is the Byzantine Empire of which I am an ignited and resold admirer. That is why I studied that subject and instead my Professor and one of my great teachers Juan Signes Codoñer (Professor of Byzantine Monographic Course) differed totally from the good reception that I have of"Count Belisario". Every person of course is a world and has his opinion, but in my opinion the bad opinion that Professor Juan Signes Codoñer had may be due to a judgment that I see in"King Jesus" and is that Graves will not tell us the story as it happened but a partial and alternative version, which seems to me just to do so, but it is not advisable to reach the excess this practice and always disagree with the officiality. Partly because if we doubted everything that was going on around us there would be no certainty possible and it would be impossible to make history or we would have to opt for a relativism that would confuse the lie with the truth. The Belisario that Graves painted us is very different from the historical one and Justinian came closer to that of the "SecretHistory" of Procopio https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... (which was practically an antichrist). Some even disagree and consider that this story has nothing to do with their story and that it is apocryphal. Zamiatin is true that he wrote a valuable work called "We" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... but we must not fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. Not always the outcast, the dissident is right. Sometimes he's an outcast, because he's rightly bad. This was already told to us in an interesting account richard Matheson in"I am Legend" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... that true danger is when the abnormal becomes normal and normal in normal. Many of the great massacres and crimes in history, which we euphemistically call revolution (the but of the times. Personally the two extremes must be avoided the Rousseaunian who defends that man is evil by nature and the Calvinist-determinist who holds the opposite of the intrinsic evil of man and as Aristotle defended https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... stay at the midpoint. We are not the worst, but what the twentieth and twenty-first century has taught us is that evil exists and there are people who are bad). This example is in Michael Flynn's wonderful novel (which should be much better known, and which is the back of "In the Name of the Rose" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...) I mean "Eifelheim" where the heretic is the real threat, and now the situation has been reversed and it seems to us that violent heresies are the everyday and the normal, when the Middle Ages is the preservation of a harmonic order in the face of these some really dangerous attacks, and harmful. No one likes to use violence, but the right to self-defence is a fair, lawful and necessary thing https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4.... It would be very unfair to cross"Count Belisario" from being an heretical novel, but if he offers a story almost always offered to us by a supporting actor of the plot in the case of"Count Belisario" a eunuch named Eugene, who also doesn't agree with Procopius, but makes us believe that Belisario, and his wife monophysita and Theodora are right to be the evil Justinians (one of the great sovereigns of history, and he is one of the few who is in Dante's heaven in"The Divine Comedy" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... ). What I want to tell the reader with this long dissertation that the poor man has been forced to swallow. It's just that you don't just keep the writer's fame and just believe him and compare it to the historical data you have. Not everyone is a historian and can do it, but if you are a person who likes to read (for something it is in goodreads the paradise of readers) compare and read books of the same subject, or the same theme. For example, Graves' Belisario will be different from Belzoni https://www.goodreads.com/series/7412... or Louis de Wohl's in his novel"Citadels of Gods" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... in this novel by the brilliant Austro-Hungarian-German writer will be much more critical of Belis for his way of behaving with Pope St. Silverio and will cross him out with punches and let himself be dominated by his wife Antonina (who was monophysita) (although in my opinion in one thing I do agree with Graves and it is that JUstinian was very ungrateful to Belisario and should not have reduced him to poverty and forced him to ask for already blind alms. This is not done to a man who has given his life for Byzantium and his emperor.) The same could be said of"Yo Claudio" in this case Graves (and this I discussed with my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or better make me see it). Most historians who history the Julio-Claudia dynasty lived with the next dynasty and wished to be pleased with the Flavia dynasty and present it in the best of ways by comparing it favorably with the Julios-Claudios hence we see all the scandals, which I believe, that did happen. Although Axel Munthe in"History of San Michele" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... doesn't think Tiberius is that monster Robert Graves paints for us. My friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca although he praised the quality of Manuel Mújica Laínez's novel"Bomarzo" saw that he possessed a flaw and is trying to imput unworthy acts that he had not committed to a real historical character. That's what was discussed in my review of"Sevillla's Samurai" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... If we read a lesser-known masterpiece"The Roman" by Mika Waltari https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... we'll see an image closer to Nero's reality. That does not make me like Julian does the apostate in Louis de Wohl's novel"You Beat Galileo" "The Imperial Renegade" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and defend Nero's crimes, which are indefensible.
In another book we all know that Robert Graves advocated the worship of the Mother Goddess and the female genius I think of"Homer's Daughter" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where he collects an idea that is not his, but Samuel Butler and it is that "The Odyssey" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... was written by a woman and that this is Naausica, although it is not the Homic Naausica that will unite the destiny of his kingdom with the homoric legend (here you can see the alternative vision that departs from the officiality of history).
As you can see I prefer the War-critical Graves and he writes delicious tales like "An ancient castle" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... however unlike other writers. The worst Serious is when he gets mystical and starts talking about religion. I already found this https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... very young, when he crushed the story of"Elisha and the Sunamite" where he not only crushed the biblical character, but also as Elisha's story did not seem enough, he also gave his particular version of Moses counting the non-existent confrontation of Moses and his brother Aarón being Miriam who gave voice to Yahweh. In case it wasn't enough Graves makes elisha and Sunamita's miracle the son of his and the Sunamite he resurrects.
The problem is that with King Jesus the problem is worse. Graves does something very peculiar, which I've seen another writer Anthony Burgess in "The Realm ofReprobs" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... which will already be discussed in another review and used by a Jewish narrator. Thank God at least Graves saves us burgess' eccentric and histrionic language twists, but it's funny that Burgess had a similar idea. One wonders if he would be inspired by Graves (for this novel predess that of Anthony Burgess)? In this case the Jew in question is called Agabo and intends to tell the story of Jesus correcting the erroneous information of Christians. The prologue of course is abracadabrante and there's nowhere to take it. Apart from being indigestible to the highest degree, because of the nonsense, it says about St. Paul, and then Graves does a very debatable thing to mix his obsessions with the Mother Goddess with gnosticism. Then we will learn that Agabo the Jew has received his information from an Blessed Bishop of Egypt, who wishes to meet this heretical branch, who reads the comments of Leonardo Castellani https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and his"The Apokalypsis of St. John",where he talks about this gnostic sect and I also recommend the book of my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca, which captures the opinions of a gnostic "The Seal of Eolo" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... and the chapter dedicated to the alternative Gospelsof Rodney Stark https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... However this is no surprise to me, since gnosticism according to my friend Professor Alfonseca would have begun with Judaism. We see anyway that Graves does not clarify and has certain brain marasmos that prevent him from writing a clear story. He tells us first of all that legitimacy comes from the people of Edom, for this he is edused in Caleb loyal supporter of Moses, and of Joshua, and some cult of an ass is invented. I suppose, a lot of your information will come from Flavius Josephus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... He confuses the priest Sadoc, with the other Sadoc in favour of the Sadducees. He enters into an un plausible intrigue with the Herods, although this is the least bad part of the novel and links this novel with "Claudio the God and his wife Mesalina" (which told the origin of Herod Agrippa although that part was the least interesting part of Graves' book. It is interesting to compare this book with Wohl's Louis novel "The Glorius Folly" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9...). ). What is already for an unacceptable Catholic is to make the Virgin Mary born by the work of the Goddess, but the paradoxical thing is that while the birth of Our Lady is supernatural it is not that of Jesus Christ, who is not born until page 160-170. Making Our Lady marry Antipatro (son of Herod). So Jesus would not come from the Holy Spirit but from the House of Herod. A ridiculous character named José Boethus is also pulled from the joker. It also collects many things from the Apocryphal Gospels about Jesus' childhood in Egypt. His instruction, and as he has an incident with another child, but then there is a part that could well have been written by J.J. Benitez https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to the Sons where I didn't hear anything. In fact, until the second part is finished the book is chaos, and pure confusion, full of keys, cryptograms and other rarities. Moreover, it is not clear to me what this Jesus, who is mortal, is coming from. It doesn't seem to be to deliver humanity from sin. Graves doesn't make it clear if he faces the Goddess, Lilith, or the demon Azazel. The story of the hairdresser, who I suppose will be Mary Magdalene only causes bewilderment to the most seasoned reader in eccentricities and rarities. Besides, if you expected Graves to take a feminist approach, forget about it. At least in this the author has been sincere. The woman is bad, and the bad sex, in fact, the reason for the expulsion from Paradise was for having sex something that only Catholics progress believe because true sin was not eating a fruit, but wanting to be like God and having rebelled against him, induced that sin did not come from Adam and Eve and is the difference with Satan). So the reader doesn't expect to find a plot in the style of Marion Zimmer Bradley https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or Dan Brown https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (of the divinity of the feminine). In addition, the book adheres to the theory that men are evil by nature adhering to Shamai's thesis, and that he could not refute Hillel. So the book is deeply misogynistic and it is impossible for Jesus to give in to carnal passion, as Mary Lazarus' sister desires. Nor is it understood that when Jesus resurrects Lazarus it is as compensation, He abandons the idea of marrying Jesus Christ.
Robert Graves looks like a poet and a true artist to me. In a sense it reminds me of Father Brown's character (well in particular it reminds me of two characters of Father Brown) one of them is Leonard Quinton the poet of the story of "TheErquivocal Form" and also that mystical fatalist trickster named John Strake inthe "'Lay Dagger' https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Personally I have had the opportunity to read several robert Graves books and have found myself absolutely everything. A novel that I love as is"Count Belisario" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... (being honest to me I almost like it more than "I Claudio" although I understand that most of the public consider the duology of the emperor of the Julius-Claudius dynasty superior to that of the Byzantine general. In my honor it is said that among my many passions is the Byzantine Empire of which I am an ignited and resold admirer. That is why I studied that subject and instead my Professor and one of my great teachers Juan Signes Codoñer (Professor of Byzantine Monographic Course) differed totally from the good reception that I have of"Count Belisario". Every person of course is a world and has his opinion, but in my opinion the bad opinion that Professor Juan Signes Codoñer had may be due to a judgment that I see in"King Jesus" and is that Graves will not tell us the story as it happened but a partial and alternative version, which seems to me just to do so, but it is not advisable to reach the excess this practice and always disagree with the officiality. Partly because if we doubted everything that was going on around us there would be no certainty possible and it would be impossible to make history or we would have to opt for a relativism that would confuse the lie with the truth. The Belisario that Graves painted us is very different from the historical one and Justinian came closer to that of the "SecretHistory" of Procopio https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... (which was practically an antichrist). Some even disagree and consider that this story has nothing to do with their story and that it is apocryphal. Zamiatin is true that he wrote a valuable work called "We" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... but we must not fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. Not always the outcast, the dissident is right. Sometimes he's an outcast, because he's rightly bad. This was already told to us in an interesting account richard Matheson in"I am Legend" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... that true danger is when the abnormal becomes normal and normal in normal. Many of the great massacres and crimes in history, which we euphemistically call revolution (the but of the times. Personally the two extremes must be avoided the Rousseaunian who defends that man is evil by nature and the Calvinist-determinist who holds the opposite of the intrinsic evil of man and as Aristotle defended https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... stay at the midpoint. We are not the worst, but what the twentieth and twenty-first century has taught us is that evil exists and there are people who are bad). This example is in Michael Flynn's wonderful novel (which should be much better known, and which is the back of "In the Name of the Rose" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...) I mean "Eifelheim" where the heretic is the real threat, and now the situation has been reversed and it seems to us that violent heresies are the everyday and the normal, when the Middle Ages is the preservation of a harmonic order in the face of these some really dangerous attacks, and harmful. No one likes to use violence, but the right to self-defence is a fair, lawful and necessary thing https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4.... It would be very unfair to cross"Count Belisario" from being an heretical novel, but if he offers a story almost always offered to us by a supporting actor of the plot in the case of"Count Belisario" a eunuch named Eugene, who also doesn't agree with Procopius, but makes us believe that Belisario, and his wife monophysita and Theodora are right to be the evil Justinians (one of the great sovereigns of history, and he is one of the few who is in Dante's heaven in"The Divine Comedy" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... ). What I want to tell the reader with this long dissertation that the poor man has been forced to swallow. It's just that you don't just keep the writer's fame and just believe him and compare it to the historical data you have. Not everyone is a historian and can do it, but if you are a person who likes to read (for something it is in goodreads the paradise of readers) compare and read books of the same subject, or the same theme. For example, Graves' Belisario will be different from Belzoni https://www.goodreads.com/series/7412... or Louis de Wohl's in his novel"Citadels of Gods" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... in this novel by the brilliant Austro-Hungarian-German writer will be much more critical of Belis for his way of behaving with Pope St. Silverio and will cross him out with punches and let himself be dominated by his wife Antonina (who was monophysita) (although in my opinion in one thing I do agree with Graves and it is that JUstinian was very ungrateful to Belisario and should not have reduced him to poverty and forced him to ask for already blind alms. This is not done to a man who has given his life for Byzantium and his emperor.) The same could be said of"Yo Claudio" in this case Graves (and this I discussed with my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or better make me see it). Most historians who history the Julio-Claudia dynasty lived with the next dynasty and wished to be pleased with the Flavia dynasty and present it in the best of ways by comparing it favorably with the Julios-Claudios hence we see all the scandals, which I believe, that did happen. Although Axel Munthe in"History of San Michele" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... doesn't think Tiberius is that monster Robert Graves paints for us. My friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca although he praised the quality of Manuel Mújica Laínez's novel"Bomarzo" saw that he possessed a flaw and is trying to imput unworthy acts that he had not committed to a real historical character. That's what was discussed in my review of"Sevillla's Samurai" https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... If we read a lesser-known masterpiece"The Roman" by Mika Waltari https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... we'll see an image closer to Nero's reality. That does not make me like Julian does the apostate in Louis de Wohl's novel"You Beat Galileo" "The Imperial Renegade" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and defend Nero's crimes, which are indefensible.
In another book we all know that Robert Graves advocated the worship of the Mother Goddess and the female genius I think of"Homer's Daughter" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... where he collects an idea that is not his, but Samuel Butler and it is that "The Odyssey" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... was written by a woman and that this is Naausica, although it is not the Homic Naausica that will unite the destiny of his kingdom with the homoric legend (here you can see the alternative vision that departs from the officiality of history).
As you can see I prefer the War-critical Graves and he writes delicious tales like "An ancient castle" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7... however unlike other writers. The worst Serious is when he gets mystical and starts talking about religion. I already found this https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... very young, when he crushed the story of"Elisha and the Sunamite" where he not only crushed the biblical character, but also as Elisha's story did not seem enough, he also gave his particular version of Moses counting the non-existent confrontation of Moses and his brother Aarón being Miriam who gave voice to Yahweh. In case it wasn't enough Graves makes elisha and Sunamita's miracle the son of his and the Sunamite he resurrects.
The problem is that with King Jesus the problem is worse. Graves does something very peculiar, which I've seen another writer Anthony Burgess in "The Realm ofReprobs" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... which will already be discussed in another review and used by a Jewish narrator. Thank God at least Graves saves us burgess' eccentric and histrionic language twists, but it's funny that Burgess had a similar idea. One wonders if he would be inspired by Graves (for this novel predess that of Anthony Burgess)? In this case the Jew in question is called Agabo and intends to tell the story of Jesus correcting the erroneous information of Christians. The prologue of course is abracadabrante and there's nowhere to take it. Apart from being indigestible to the highest degree, because of the nonsense, it says about St. Paul, and then Graves does a very debatable thing to mix his obsessions with the Mother Goddess with gnosticism. Then we will learn that Agabo the Jew has received his information from an Blessed Bishop of Egypt, who wishes to meet this heretical branch, who reads the comments of Leonardo Castellani https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and his"The Apokalypsis of St. John",where he talks about this gnostic sect and I also recommend the book of my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca, which captures the opinions of a gnostic "The Seal of Eolo" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... and the chapter dedicated to the alternative Gospelsof Rodney Stark https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... However this is no surprise to me, since gnosticism according to my friend Professor Alfonseca would have begun with Judaism. We see anyway that Graves does not clarify and has certain brain marasmos that prevent him from writing a clear story. He tells us first of all that legitimacy comes from the people of Edom, for this he is edused in Caleb loyal supporter of Moses, and of Joshua, and some cult of an ass is invented. I suppose, a lot of your information will come from Flavius Josephus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... He confuses the priest Sadoc, with the other Sadoc in favour of the Sadducees. He enters into an un plausible intrigue with the Herods, although this is the least bad part of the novel and links this novel with "Claudio the God and his wife Mesalina" (which told the origin of Herod Agrippa although that part was the least interesting part of Graves' book. It is interesting to compare this book with Wohl's Louis novel "The Glorius Folly" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9...). ). What is already for an unacceptable Catholic is to make the Virgin Mary born by the work of the Goddess, but the paradoxical thing is that while the birth of Our Lady is supernatural it is not that of Jesus Christ, who is not born until page 160-170. Making Our Lady marry Antipatro (son of Herod). So Jesus would not come from the Holy Spirit but from the House of Herod. A ridiculous character named José Boethus is also pulled from the joker. It also collects many things from the Apocryphal Gospels about Jesus' childhood in Egypt. His instruction, and as he has an incident with another child, but then there is a part that could well have been written by J.J. Benitez https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... to the Sons where I didn't hear anything. In fact, until the second part is finished the book is chaos, and pure confusion, full of keys, cryptograms and other rarities. Moreover, it is not clear to me what this Jesus, who is mortal, is coming from. It doesn't seem to be to deliver humanity from sin. Graves doesn't make it clear if he faces the Goddess, Lilith, or the demon Azazel. The story of the hairdresser, who I suppose will be Mary Magdalene only causes bewilderment to the most seasoned reader in eccentricities and rarities. Besides, if you expected Graves to take a feminist approach, forget about it. At least in this the author has been sincere. The woman is bad, and the bad sex, in fact, the reason for the expulsion from Paradise was for having sex something that only Catholics progress believe because true sin was not eating a fruit, but wanting to be like God and having rebelled against him, induced that sin did not come from Adam and Eve and is the difference with Satan). So the reader doesn't expect to find a plot in the style of Marion Zimmer Bradley https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... or Dan Brown https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (of the divinity of the feminine). In addition, the book adheres to the theory that men are evil by nature adhering to Shamai's thesis, and that he could not refute Hillel. So the book is deeply misogynistic and it is impossible for Jesus to give in to carnal passion, as Mary Lazarus' sister desires. Nor is it understood that when Jesus resurrects Lazarus it is as compensation, He abandons the idea of marrying Jesus Christ.
September 11, 2010
King Jesus astonishing and gripping novel is not an easy read, nor is it a one-time only read, but it is well-worth the time put into it. Jesus' birth, growing-up, and ministry are told through the eyes of a 1st century historian Agipus the Decapolitan (who may or may not be imagined.)Not surprisingly, this is, after all Graves the author of The White Goddess, Agipus says that the Jews have never been able to keep their women in perfect subjection, and have therefore never been able to worship Jehovah with the purity they profess. Therefore, "The Great Goddess, to whom the land of Palestine originally belonged is always tripping them up and seducing them into folly." Thus, part of Jesus' ministry is to put women in their place.
Graves is nothing if not sly. Agipus is not a Christian, but he does have reverence for Jesus. He believes that Jesus raised Lazarus and that Jesus was resurrected, but that doesn't mean he believes that Jesus created all the miracles attributed to him. For instance, turning water into wine Agipus deems a "cheap magician's trick" that Jesus wouldn't have lowered himself to do. As for the Immaculate Conception, Mary does tell Joseph that the angel Gabriel came to her to announce her son's birth; however, Agipus also tells us that Mary was secretly married to Herod's oldest son. At Jesus' birth, the midwives do say that Mary's hymen was intact (to which Herod sneers that he's heard that story before.) Later, when Jesus is preaching publicly, people in the crowd are amazed that he looked more like King Herod than Herod's own sons did.
Agipus insists that Jesus is the true King of the Jews as he is heir to Herod's throne. So, Graves never actually says that Mary wasn't a virgin mother, but he has Agipus almost innocently show that she wasn't. I'm sure that those who believe in Christian theology can explain this paradox. For instance, a devout Christian could just surmise that Agipus was wrong. He's positing an event that never happened: Mary's one night stand with Herod's son who is shortly thereafter conveniently murdered. This last might well be actual fact --the murder, that is. Graves is a sound scholar. As to Mary's first marriage, I have no clue as to whether that is fact or Graves's imagination. After all, he did need some explanation for Jesus being King of the Jews. The Messiah is not a king.
When Graves does want you to believe something, he is quite forthright about it. He has Agipus explicitly say that Christians who assume that Jesus' preaching was against the Jews simply are ignorant of Jewish teachings. Agipus cites chapter and verse showing that Jesus was himself a Pharisee, a follower of Hillel, and quotes Jesus as saying that Pharisees need no redemption and also that salvation has to come from the Jews. I'm sure my Friar friends would be aghast at this, but that Agipus believes it is not in doubt. Such statements are organically placed throughout the novel, often in between quotes. I presume that means that Graves had some sources for such beliefs.
As an aside, I must say that, at Hebrew School, we were taught that Jesus was a Pharisee, which is why he called some of them hypocrites. I, have also studied everything Jesus said in the Gospels--not the comments of the Gospel writers, but the actual words of Jesus(see also my review of Vermes Jesus the Jew. Needless to say, they were all Pharisaic teachings still adhered to today by Jews. Of course, Jews attribute them to Hillel and other sages, as well as to the Jewish Bible.
The novel is so deep and all-encompassing about an age and a place that were filled with all sorts of beliefs, religions, events, murders, kindnesses, paradoxes, and upheavals that a short review can in no way do it justice. So, I will cite a few passages of note to pique your interest (or quench it, as the case may be.)
One recounts a trip to a holy site to celebrate Abraham's birth. There, Jesus meets up with a group of Greek and Mideastern scholars, not Jews, who also consider themselves descendents of Abraham. It soon becomes clear that they equate Abraham and others who populate the Bible as being the Jewish equivalent of Pagan gods and goddesses. What follows are the scholars' explanation of what pagan gods or goddesses have been turned into different Jewish heroes and heroines or villains. The result is a brilliant scholarly argument based on tenuous and unlikely comparisons. Although I started to read this seriously, it soon struck me as hilarious, a perfect example of pompous exposition by scholars whose scholarship is wanting.
Okay. I admit it. I am neither a Classicist nor a theologian and I certainly am not up in the complexities of pre-Biblical mythology. Someone who is might well tell me how misguided I am and prove to me that the discourse is really serious.
Another, quite different passage has Jesus as a young scholar quote from Ezekiel a mystical passage of intricate, complex visual imagery. Jesus then fluently gives what I found an intriguing, brilliant exegesis of the passage. I found myself rereading this section over and over. Graves's writing is so vivid, I could see the wheels and the images clearly.
Yet another different chapter recounts the Last Supper in a wholly new light. Jesus actually asks Judas to betray him, which Judas is wholly unwilling to do. Besides this reinterpretation of the events, the actual description of the Seder and the preparations made for it are as immediate as a filming. The account of the Crucifixion is also compelling as are the instances in which Jesus reveals himself as being resurrected. It is written so that, if you are a traditional Christian, you would accept that he was resurrected. If, like me, you aren't, it is also possible to interpret the scenes as waking dreams.
Agipus believes Jesus was resurrected, although he pooh poohs most of the accepted miracles in the Gospels, calling the turning of wine into water at the wedding in Canna, a cheap magician's trick that Jesus would never have resorted to. However, Agipus does believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. In fact, for that reason, he believes that Jesus felt he owed his life to God, since he gave Lazarus back to him. The reason Jesus raised Lazarus is that Jesus was celibately married to Mary, Lazarus's sister who gave Jesus two alternatives: either lie with her so she could have a baby or bring her brother back from death.
I don't know how traditional Christians would feel about Graves's, to me unique, take on Jesus, although many of them devoured The DaVinci Code which certainly undeified Jesus. In contrast, Graves leaves the question of Jesus' divinity open. Passages that could be construed as Jesus not being divine are not open and shut. They are how a non-Christian and a non-Jew saw Jesus, not how Jews or, later, Christians did.
My only complaint about a novel like this, written by a brilliant, highly-respected scholar who could and did read 1st century manuscripts in their original languages, is that we never know what is based on those manuscripts versus what is the author's imagination. I could search the electronic databases for Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Classics and seek out articles written on various points in this book, but they would assume I came to them with knowledge I don't have, and also, they could be written in deadly scholarly prose (unlike Robert Graves's scholarly writing,I might add.) If any reader knows of any pertinent scholarly works that pertain to this amazing novel, please let me know. One reading of this is not enough to plumb its complexity, style, or meaning.
Graves is nothing if not sly. Agipus is not a Christian, but he does have reverence for Jesus. He believes that Jesus raised Lazarus and that Jesus was resurrected, but that doesn't mean he believes that Jesus created all the miracles attributed to him. For instance, turning water into wine Agipus deems a "cheap magician's trick" that Jesus wouldn't have lowered himself to do. As for the Immaculate Conception, Mary does tell Joseph that the angel Gabriel came to her to announce her son's birth; however, Agipus also tells us that Mary was secretly married to Herod's oldest son. At Jesus' birth, the midwives do say that Mary's hymen was intact (to which Herod sneers that he's heard that story before.) Later, when Jesus is preaching publicly, people in the crowd are amazed that he looked more like King Herod than Herod's own sons did.
Agipus insists that Jesus is the true King of the Jews as he is heir to Herod's throne. So, Graves never actually says that Mary wasn't a virgin mother, but he has Agipus almost innocently show that she wasn't. I'm sure that those who believe in Christian theology can explain this paradox. For instance, a devout Christian could just surmise that Agipus was wrong. He's positing an event that never happened: Mary's one night stand with Herod's son who is shortly thereafter conveniently murdered. This last might well be actual fact --the murder, that is. Graves is a sound scholar. As to Mary's first marriage, I have no clue as to whether that is fact or Graves's imagination. After all, he did need some explanation for Jesus being King of the Jews. The Messiah is not a king.
When Graves does want you to believe something, he is quite forthright about it. He has Agipus explicitly say that Christians who assume that Jesus' preaching was against the Jews simply are ignorant of Jewish teachings. Agipus cites chapter and verse showing that Jesus was himself a Pharisee, a follower of Hillel, and quotes Jesus as saying that Pharisees need no redemption and also that salvation has to come from the Jews. I'm sure my Friar friends would be aghast at this, but that Agipus believes it is not in doubt. Such statements are organically placed throughout the novel, often in between quotes. I presume that means that Graves had some sources for such beliefs.
As an aside, I must say that, at Hebrew School, we were taught that Jesus was a Pharisee, which is why he called some of them hypocrites. I, have also studied everything Jesus said in the Gospels--not the comments of the Gospel writers, but the actual words of Jesus(see also my review of Vermes Jesus the Jew. Needless to say, they were all Pharisaic teachings still adhered to today by Jews. Of course, Jews attribute them to Hillel and other sages, as well as to the Jewish Bible.
The novel is so deep and all-encompassing about an age and a place that were filled with all sorts of beliefs, religions, events, murders, kindnesses, paradoxes, and upheavals that a short review can in no way do it justice. So, I will cite a few passages of note to pique your interest (or quench it, as the case may be.)
One recounts a trip to a holy site to celebrate Abraham's birth. There, Jesus meets up with a group of Greek and Mideastern scholars, not Jews, who also consider themselves descendents of Abraham. It soon becomes clear that they equate Abraham and others who populate the Bible as being the Jewish equivalent of Pagan gods and goddesses. What follows are the scholars' explanation of what pagan gods or goddesses have been turned into different Jewish heroes and heroines or villains. The result is a brilliant scholarly argument based on tenuous and unlikely comparisons. Although I started to read this seriously, it soon struck me as hilarious, a perfect example of pompous exposition by scholars whose scholarship is wanting.
Okay. I admit it. I am neither a Classicist nor a theologian and I certainly am not up in the complexities of pre-Biblical mythology. Someone who is might well tell me how misguided I am and prove to me that the discourse is really serious.
Another, quite different passage has Jesus as a young scholar quote from Ezekiel a mystical passage of intricate, complex visual imagery. Jesus then fluently gives what I found an intriguing, brilliant exegesis of the passage. I found myself rereading this section over and over. Graves's writing is so vivid, I could see the wheels and the images clearly.
Yet another different chapter recounts the Last Supper in a wholly new light. Jesus actually asks Judas to betray him, which Judas is wholly unwilling to do. Besides this reinterpretation of the events, the actual description of the Seder and the preparations made for it are as immediate as a filming. The account of the Crucifixion is also compelling as are the instances in which Jesus reveals himself as being resurrected. It is written so that, if you are a traditional Christian, you would accept that he was resurrected. If, like me, you aren't, it is also possible to interpret the scenes as waking dreams.
Agipus believes Jesus was resurrected, although he pooh poohs most of the accepted miracles in the Gospels, calling the turning of wine into water at the wedding in Canna, a cheap magician's trick that Jesus would never have resorted to. However, Agipus does believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. In fact, for that reason, he believes that Jesus felt he owed his life to God, since he gave Lazarus back to him. The reason Jesus raised Lazarus is that Jesus was celibately married to Mary, Lazarus's sister who gave Jesus two alternatives: either lie with her so she could have a baby or bring her brother back from death.
I don't know how traditional Christians would feel about Graves's, to me unique, take on Jesus, although many of them devoured The DaVinci Code which certainly undeified Jesus. In contrast, Graves leaves the question of Jesus' divinity open. Passages that could be construed as Jesus not being divine are not open and shut. They are how a non-Christian and a non-Jew saw Jesus, not how Jews or, later, Christians did.
My only complaint about a novel like this, written by a brilliant, highly-respected scholar who could and did read 1st century manuscripts in their original languages, is that we never know what is based on those manuscripts versus what is the author's imagination. I could search the electronic databases for Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Classics and seek out articles written on various points in this book, but they would assume I came to them with knowledge I don't have, and also, they could be written in deadly scholarly prose (unlike Robert Graves's scholarly writing,I might add.) If any reader knows of any pertinent scholarly works that pertain to this amazing novel, please let me know. One reading of this is not enough to plumb its complexity, style, or meaning.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 10, 2023
Ha sido una buena lectura para pasar la Semana Santa ya que habla de la vida del Jesús histórico desde antes de su nacimiento.
Creía que no iba a tener contenido religioso pero sí tiene y eso hace densas algunas partes. (Se me hicieron bola porque no me interesaban).
Robert Graves muestra una nueva versión de la vida y obra de Jesús que se aleja de lo que nos relata la iglesia. Contiene datos y hechos históricos que me han gustado mucho pero también trata mucho sobre la religión judía y doctrinas antiguas que se me hicieron cuesta arriba.
Creía que no iba a tener contenido religioso pero sí tiene y eso hace densas algunas partes. (Se me hicieron bola porque no me interesaban).
Robert Graves muestra una nueva versión de la vida y obra de Jesús que se aleja de lo que nos relata la iglesia. Contiene datos y hechos históricos que me han gustado mucho pero también trata mucho sobre la religión judía y doctrinas antiguas que se me hicieron cuesta arriba.
April 12, 2009
I didn't plan on reading this book (and the thematically related Eve: A Novel of the First Woman) around Easter but that's how things worked out. Graves always enjoys turning readers' perceptions upside down in his historical novels (I'm afraid my recollection of the Julio-Claudians will be forever colored by I Claudius: From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius Born 10 B.C. Murdered Deified A.D. 54 and its sequel). And his erudition is astounding. You may not accept his interpretations of Greek myth (The Greek Myths) or of the pre-Indo-European goddess cults (The White Goddess: A Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth) but you have to grant him a mastery of the sources common and obscure that few can equal.
In King Jesus Graves exploits every contradiction in the canonical Gospels, the Apocrypha, Jewish tradition and Gnostic writings and combines it with pre-Hellenic religious traditions to write the "real story" of Jesus' ministry. Graves makes no concession to later Christian mythology. Jesus believes he is a Jewish Messiah sent to "destroy the works of the Female" (more of that later). Other nations may be saved but it would be under the hegemony of a Jewish savior of a restored Israel.
The book purports to be written by Agabus the Decapolitan during the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96); a pagan who once succored a follower of Jesus during one of the persecutions. This source vouchsafed to Agabus the real story because he believed himself to be the last survivor and wanted to preserve the true tradition of who Jesus was and why he acted as he did. I don't know if Agabus is a historical figure; knowing Graves' exhaustive research into obscure texts, he may very well be but he's a believable narrator for the story: disinterested but sympathetic. Graves also makes it a point to relate the story through the eyes of a first century AD, educated citizen of the Roman Empire. Agabus is not an atheist or skeptic, he worships his gods and accepts that Jesus could, for example, raise a man from the dead by uttering God's true name or heal people based on his own strong faith and the faith of his followers.
The first part of the book recounts the birth of Mary, her life and Jesus' birth. It would be too confusing to recount all the background but suffice it to say that Mary is the scion of the matrilineal line of high priestesses displaced by the patriarchal worshipers of the Sky Father who overran the Middle East and among whom are the ancestors of the Jews. This displacement was not total, however. For millennia, the invading patriarchs have had to win legitimacy by marrying the priestesses and honoring the goddess (in her many manifestations). This is where Christians may get "nervous": In order to legitimize the Herodian dynasty, the Jewish High Priest of the time (Simon) concocts a scheme whereby Herod's first son, Antipater, weds Mary and their issue will reign as a king acceptable to the entire Jewish nation. The first half of the plan goes well: Mary and Antipater are secretly married and he manages to get her pregnant with Jesus. Publicly, Mary is wed to the septegenarian Joseph of Emmaus. After this, alas, things fall apart. Antipater is not the most politically savvy operator and falls afoul of his father's raging paranoia, forcing Joseph, Mary and Jesus to flee to Egypt.
Part two of the novel recounts Jesus' childhood. Here Graves follows the traditional narrative fairly closely but motives and reasons are very different - Jesus' mentors are grooming him to become the Messiah and he's fully cognizant of the role he's destined to play, if not it's exact form. This section ends with Jesus' marriage to another Mary, also an heiress to the ancient priestesses, and his laming, symbolic of his position as the Goddess' consort. There's also an extended scene with yet another Mary, the Hairdresser (aka the Magdalene), an old priestess, where she and Jesus debate radically different interpretations of the ancient tablets on which the Jews base their Law:
Denied political power, Jesus comes to see his Messiahship in a far more symbolic and important light: Rising beyond the flesh (the Female) and bringing an era of spiritual enlightenment that will free men and women from carnality and the snares of the flesh. Women aren't to be excluded from the Kingdom but they and men can only enter by denying the flesh - becoming neither male nor female.
In reference to the Yahweh cult's accomodations with goddesses, there is a growing body of archeological evidence confirming it. The God of the Jews and the New Testament we're familiar with - alone, transcendant, omnipotent, etc. - wasn't created until the Deuteronomic reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BC (The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts).
Part three follows Jesus' ministry as he preaches to the Jews. Again Graves follows the traditional narrative on the surface but motivations are very different. From confidence in the success of his mission and the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus knows despair and realizes that he has failed - he tried to "hurry" God's dispensation, the sin of pride and presumption. He tries to redeem the situation by getting Judas (the most perceptive of the Apostles) to slay him as the traditional sacrifice but Judas doesn't want to kill Jesus, his friend and teacher, and betrays him to the Jewish authorities on the understanding that Jesus' supporters in the Sanhedrin (Pharisees, mostly) will save him. Again, plans go awry and it's a Sadducee-dominated quorum that turns him over to the Romans. Peter is Jesus' last hope but he can't understand what Jesus wants and uses his sword to try and defend him in the famous garden scene where he cuts off a soldier's ear. (Of course, it doesn't help that Jesus is less than straightforward in asking his disciples for help.)
Hopefully, this barebones account of this remarkable book will encourage readers to check it out. Beyond its provocative subject matter, it's a good novel in its own right. And I'll take this opportunity to highly recommend Paula Frederickson's Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. It's a nonfictional perspective on "the greatest story ever told" that tries to make sense of Jesus' life in the context of 1st century Palestine and does so in a very persuasive argument.
In King Jesus Graves exploits every contradiction in the canonical Gospels, the Apocrypha, Jewish tradition and Gnostic writings and combines it with pre-Hellenic religious traditions to write the "real story" of Jesus' ministry. Graves makes no concession to later Christian mythology. Jesus believes he is a Jewish Messiah sent to "destroy the works of the Female" (more of that later). Other nations may be saved but it would be under the hegemony of a Jewish savior of a restored Israel.
The book purports to be written by Agabus the Decapolitan during the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96); a pagan who once succored a follower of Jesus during one of the persecutions. This source vouchsafed to Agabus the real story because he believed himself to be the last survivor and wanted to preserve the true tradition of who Jesus was and why he acted as he did. I don't know if Agabus is a historical figure; knowing Graves' exhaustive research into obscure texts, he may very well be but he's a believable narrator for the story: disinterested but sympathetic. Graves also makes it a point to relate the story through the eyes of a first century AD, educated citizen of the Roman Empire. Agabus is not an atheist or skeptic, he worships his gods and accepts that Jesus could, for example, raise a man from the dead by uttering God's true name or heal people based on his own strong faith and the faith of his followers.
The first part of the book recounts the birth of Mary, her life and Jesus' birth. It would be too confusing to recount all the background but suffice it to say that Mary is the scion of the matrilineal line of high priestesses displaced by the patriarchal worshipers of the Sky Father who overran the Middle East and among whom are the ancestors of the Jews. This displacement was not total, however. For millennia, the invading patriarchs have had to win legitimacy by marrying the priestesses and honoring the goddess (in her many manifestations). This is where Christians may get "nervous": In order to legitimize the Herodian dynasty, the Jewish High Priest of the time (Simon) concocts a scheme whereby Herod's first son, Antipater, weds Mary and their issue will reign as a king acceptable to the entire Jewish nation. The first half of the plan goes well: Mary and Antipater are secretly married and he manages to get her pregnant with Jesus. Publicly, Mary is wed to the septegenarian Joseph of Emmaus. After this, alas, things fall apart. Antipater is not the most politically savvy operator and falls afoul of his father's raging paranoia, forcing Joseph, Mary and Jesus to flee to Egypt.
Part two of the novel recounts Jesus' childhood. Here Graves follows the traditional narrative fairly closely but motives and reasons are very different - Jesus' mentors are grooming him to become the Messiah and he's fully cognizant of the role he's destined to play, if not it's exact form. This section ends with Jesus' marriage to another Mary, also an heiress to the ancient priestesses, and his laming, symbolic of his position as the Goddess' consort. There's also an extended scene with yet another Mary, the Hairdresser (aka the Magdalene), an old priestess, where she and Jesus debate radically different interpretations of the ancient tablets on which the Jews base their Law:
"Mary said: `See where my Mistress, the First Eve, is seated on her birth-stool under the palm-tree. The people are awaiting a great event, for the pangs are upon her.'
"Swiftly, Jesus answered her: `No, witch, that is not the First Eve: that is Deborah judging the Israelites under the palm-tree of Deborah. For so it is written.'" (p. 251)
Denied political power, Jesus comes to see his Messiahship in a far more symbolic and important light: Rising beyond the flesh (the Female) and bringing an era of spiritual enlightenment that will free men and women from carnality and the snares of the flesh. Women aren't to be excluded from the Kingdom but they and men can only enter by denying the flesh - becoming neither male nor female.
In reference to the Yahweh cult's accomodations with goddesses, there is a growing body of archeological evidence confirming it. The God of the Jews and the New Testament we're familiar with - alone, transcendant, omnipotent, etc. - wasn't created until the Deuteronomic reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BC (The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts).
Part three follows Jesus' ministry as he preaches to the Jews. Again Graves follows the traditional narrative on the surface but motivations are very different. From confidence in the success of his mission and the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus knows despair and realizes that he has failed - he tried to "hurry" God's dispensation, the sin of pride and presumption. He tries to redeem the situation by getting Judas (the most perceptive of the Apostles) to slay him as the traditional sacrifice but Judas doesn't want to kill Jesus, his friend and teacher, and betrays him to the Jewish authorities on the understanding that Jesus' supporters in the Sanhedrin (Pharisees, mostly) will save him. Again, plans go awry and it's a Sadducee-dominated quorum that turns him over to the Romans. Peter is Jesus' last hope but he can't understand what Jesus wants and uses his sword to try and defend him in the famous garden scene where he cuts off a soldier's ear. (Of course, it doesn't help that Jesus is less than straightforward in asking his disciples for help.)
Hopefully, this barebones account of this remarkable book will encourage readers to check it out. Beyond its provocative subject matter, it's a good novel in its own right. And I'll take this opportunity to highly recommend Paula Frederickson's Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. It's a nonfictional perspective on "the greatest story ever told" that tries to make sense of Jesus' life in the context of 1st century Palestine and does so in a very persuasive argument.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 5, 2017
This book stirred up controversy when it was published and it was a fascinating read.
January 14, 2025
„Król Jezus” Roberta Gravesa łączy fikcję literacką z historycznymi i biblijnymi przekazami na temat życia Jezusa. Autor przekształca znane wydarzenia, uzupełniając je o dopowiedzenia, co w ciekawy sposób wprawiało mnie w konsternację.
To alternatywna, domniemana historia życia Jezusa, która pokazuje niektóre wydarzenia z perspektywy tego, jak mogły wyglądać w rzeczywistości – na przykład narodziny Jezusa, uzdrowienia czy cud przemiany wody w wino.
Niezwykle interesujący jest fakt, że Robert Graves opiera swoje domniemania w dużej mierze na szczegółowych badaniach naukowych, źródłach historycznych a także badaniach językowych (jak tłumaczy w komentarzu historycznym). Jednocześnie to pasjonująca historia tworzenia mitu, w której jedna godna podziwu rzecz zmienia się po kilku dniach w cud, a ten po paru tygodniach w kilka cudów. Graves pokazuje również, że znając przepowiednie, można je świadomie wypełnić – i tak właśnie postępuje w powieści Jezus.
Szczególnie interesujące są rozdziały, w których Graves analizuje proces przemian religijnych, ukazując, jak jedne wierzenia przekształcały się w inne (kult Dionizosa w kult Jahwe, misteria dionizyjskie w święto Paschy) a bóstwa zmieniały imiona i funkcje (jak egipski bóg Słońca zmienił się w Jahwe). Te rozważania stanowią przedsmak jego późniejszego dzieła „Biała Bogini”, gdzie podobne idee są przedstawione w bardziej systematyczny sposób. Styl Gravesa jest erudycyjny (jak w Biblii, pełno ty imion, nazw własnych , plemion czy stowarzyszeń), co miejscami czyni lekturę wymagającą, ale zarazem bardzo satysfakcjonującą.
Jednak wydaje mi się, że czerpałabym z tej książki jeszcze więcej frajdy, gdybym lepiej znała Biblię, historię starożytnego Rzymu, Grecji i w ogóle starożytność -bo mogłabym odczytać więcej nawiązań i tropów, użytych przez autora.
To alternatywna, domniemana historia życia Jezusa, która pokazuje niektóre wydarzenia z perspektywy tego, jak mogły wyglądać w rzeczywistości – na przykład narodziny Jezusa, uzdrowienia czy cud przemiany wody w wino.
Niezwykle interesujący jest fakt, że Robert Graves opiera swoje domniemania w dużej mierze na szczegółowych badaniach naukowych, źródłach historycznych a także badaniach językowych (jak tłumaczy w komentarzu historycznym). Jednocześnie to pasjonująca historia tworzenia mitu, w której jedna godna podziwu rzecz zmienia się po kilku dniach w cud, a ten po paru tygodniach w kilka cudów. Graves pokazuje również, że znając przepowiednie, można je świadomie wypełnić – i tak właśnie postępuje w powieści Jezus.
Szczególnie interesujące są rozdziały, w których Graves analizuje proces przemian religijnych, ukazując, jak jedne wierzenia przekształcały się w inne (kult Dionizosa w kult Jahwe, misteria dionizyjskie w święto Paschy) a bóstwa zmieniały imiona i funkcje (jak egipski bóg Słońca zmienił się w Jahwe). Te rozważania stanowią przedsmak jego późniejszego dzieła „Biała Bogini”, gdzie podobne idee są przedstawione w bardziej systematyczny sposób. Styl Gravesa jest erudycyjny (jak w Biblii, pełno ty imion, nazw własnych , plemion czy stowarzyszeń), co miejscami czyni lekturę wymagającą, ale zarazem bardzo satysfakcjonującą.
Jednak wydaje mi się, że czerpałabym z tej książki jeszcze więcej frajdy, gdybym lepiej znała Biblię, historię starożytnego Rzymu, Grecji i w ogóle starożytność -bo mogłabym odczytać więcej nawiązań i tropów, użytych przez autora.
May 20, 2025
DNF. Listen. I tried. But clearly I only enjoy a Robert Graves if I know about the background (I, Claudius; Claudius the God; Golden Fleece), and not if I don’t know so much (Count Belisarius; King Jesus). I enjoyed the start and then got more and more confused, and think I just needed biblical knowledge. Then I just got increasingly mad because I didn’t understand lol and decided it wasn’t worth it. And that’s on me but nevermind now.
March 23, 2023
My point is 3.5
February 25, 2015
This is by far the best alt history of Jesus that I have read. It would be great fun to reverse engineer this book. I noticed several borrowings from the Christian deuterocanonical books, some of which Graves acknowledges in his very brief historical note at the end. In that same note he apologizes for not writing a more thorough acknowledgement of his sources, with the excuse that such an acknowledgement would be longer than the book itself!
I do have some minor quibbles with the book. It takes the form of a narration by a certain Agabus writing in the last decade of the 1st century. This is fine, but one can never be quite sure whether Agabus is a monotheist or a pagan, and the confusion muddles the story in places. Graves seems to want to say that everything in the Torah is based on previous pagan religions (his obsession with the Triple Goddess gets quite tiring), but also does not want to detract from our admiring Jesus' for his fierce devotion to Jewish monotheism! (And it is more than a minor annoyance that Jesus totally breaks character by referring to the planets by the names of Babylonian gods rather than by their Hebrew names.)
These minor flaws are more than offset by the great fun Graves has in reconstructing events mentioned in the canonical gospels; offering greater detail than is recorded there. For example, his account of Jesus casting seven demons out of Mary Magdalene runs nine pages! It includes the names of all seven, which should provide interesting research material for demonology enthusiast.
The ending is great in that it raises more questions than it answers. Graves leaves the answers to these two questions to our own speculative imaginations.
I do have some minor quibbles with the book. It takes the form of a narration by a certain Agabus writing in the last decade of the 1st century. This is fine, but one can never be quite sure whether Agabus is a monotheist or a pagan, and the confusion muddles the story in places. Graves seems to want to say that everything in the Torah is based on previous pagan religions (his obsession with the Triple Goddess gets quite tiring), but also does not want to detract from our admiring Jesus' for his fierce devotion to Jewish monotheism! (And it is more than a minor annoyance that Jesus totally breaks character by referring to the planets by the names of Babylonian gods rather than by their Hebrew names.)
These minor flaws are more than offset by the great fun Graves has in reconstructing events mentioned in the canonical gospels; offering greater detail than is recorded there. For example, his account of Jesus casting seven demons out of Mary Magdalene runs nine pages! It includes the names of all seven, which should provide interesting research material for demonology enthusiast.
The ending is great in that it raises more questions than it answers. Graves leaves the answers to these two questions to our own speculative imaginations.
January 17, 2020
Brilliant Graves!
“Aleph, as I understand the character, is an ox lying sacrificed, the yoke still on his neck; which signifies that the study of literature must begin with sacrifice. We must dedicate to the Lord our first and most precious possession, which is emblemized by the yoked ox, namely our obedient labour until we drop dead. This was the answer given me.”
“Tell me, have you come to this school as a pupil or as a Doctor of the Law?” cried the schoolmaster, speaking the slow ironic drawl which his pupils had learned to fear more than his roar of passion.
Jesus simply replied: “I have heard it said: “Scatter where you gather, gather were you scatter.” You asked me why the first letter of the alphabet is shaped as it is shaped, and I gave you the explanation that came in answer to my prayer. This was my scattering. As for my gathering, I should like to know, if you will scatter in return, why the last letter of the alphabet is so shaped?”
The master grasped his rod of storax-wood and advanced towards Jesus with menacing grunts. He asked, his face pale with anger: “The last letter of the alphabet! Do you mean the letter Tav, Rabbi Jesus?”
“I am not the rabbi, you are the rabbi; and it is Tav that I mean.”
“Tav is the last letter, and the reason for its shape is not far to seek. For Tav is shaped like a cross, and the shameful cross is the destined end of shameless scholars who presume to chop logic with their teacher. Jesus, son of the Carpenter, beware, for its shadow already falls across your path!”‘
“Aleph, as I understand the character, is an ox lying sacrificed, the yoke still on his neck; which signifies that the study of literature must begin with sacrifice. We must dedicate to the Lord our first and most precious possession, which is emblemized by the yoked ox, namely our obedient labour until we drop dead. This was the answer given me.”
“Tell me, have you come to this school as a pupil or as a Doctor of the Law?” cried the schoolmaster, speaking the slow ironic drawl which his pupils had learned to fear more than his roar of passion.
Jesus simply replied: “I have heard it said: “Scatter where you gather, gather were you scatter.” You asked me why the first letter of the alphabet is shaped as it is shaped, and I gave you the explanation that came in answer to my prayer. This was my scattering. As for my gathering, I should like to know, if you will scatter in return, why the last letter of the alphabet is so shaped?”
The master grasped his rod of storax-wood and advanced towards Jesus with menacing grunts. He asked, his face pale with anger: “The last letter of the alphabet! Do you mean the letter Tav, Rabbi Jesus?”
“I am not the rabbi, you are the rabbi; and it is Tav that I mean.”
“Tav is the last letter, and the reason for its shape is not far to seek. For Tav is shaped like a cross, and the shameful cross is the destined end of shameless scholars who presume to chop logic with their teacher. Jesus, son of the Carpenter, beware, for its shadow already falls across your path!”‘
March 17, 2012
The origins of St. Patrick's Day remain a mystery after this one, but I enjoyed reading this quite a lot. Very sympathetic to the traditional villains in the Passion tale, because of Graves' apparent understanding of Jewish customs and traditions, laws and celebrations. This novel is overtly hostile to Christian theology, just as Graves' other historical novels (I, Claudius, Count Belisarius, to name the two I've read) seem written primarily for the purpose of correcting annoying misconceptions and falsehoods propagated by the conventional surviving records of those times. Nothing could be more different from Mel Gibson's version of The Passion than this sometimes profound and often poetic account of the life and times of King Jesus. (The title appears in the text only once, coming from the mouth of Pontius Pilate.)
May 22, 2022
"رابرت گر یوزو استاد بزرگ تاریخ و ادبیات یونانی و لاتین، و از بزرگترین اسطوره شناسان قرن بیستم است. تا کنون کتاب های منم کلودیوس، خدایگان کلودیوس، اسطوره های یونانی و لاتین، و قیصر و کسری از او به فارسی ترجمه شده است. عیسای پادشاه اثر بزرگ دیگری از اوست که با پژوهش و بینش و دانشی ژرف در تاریخ و اسطوره شناسی مرتبط با زمان و مکان عیسی در قالب رمان روایی جذاب و آگاهی دهنده ای نگارش یافته است. این حقیقت که در حدود یک چهارم جمعیت جهان را مسیحیان تشکیل می دهند به خودی خود کافی است که این کنجکاوی را بر انگیزد که مبانی اعتقادی آنان، سر بر آورده از آیین یهود، و مبتنی بر تعلیمات عیسی مسیح که در این کتاب آمده است چیست و چگونه با اساطیر رایج در فرهنگ های دنیایی رومی و یونانی و سوریای ومصری و ایرانی در آمیخته است."
August 5, 2012
I first read this as an early edition hard-back in the mid 80's. It is Graves at his best and, at times, most weird. He gives an original and fairly plausible alternative to the generally accepted religious view of Jesus. I doubt the 'true believer' will like it or get past the opening chapter: a recommendation in itself. Although not as instantly readable as 'I Clavdivs' and requiring far more effort from the reader, King Jesus is still a book that deserves a far wider readership than it has received since it was first published.
November 30, 2021
Pretty mind-blowing and head-spinning attempt to paint a picture of what the life of a historical Jesus might have been like, albeit with a lot of religio-political intrigue behind the scenes of his life. I found this book to be often kind of confusing and it's definitely a challenge to plow through. But by the end, it was incredibly rewarding. This isn't a light read, but it's a good one.
February 28, 2020
This book was super interesting, but a bit over the top. It goes really deep into Hebron and Edomite mythology. A christian might find it sacrilegious. A non-christian might not catch all the subtle references to Bible passages.
February 9, 2021
I have tried reading this book a couple of times before, but this time I persevered. Let me offer fair warning that, although I am usually careful not to void spoilers, I will not take such precautions in this review and what follows will be chock full of them.
The first part of the book is entertaining enough but made tedious by the technicalities concerning various Jewish sects and regions around the inception of the Roman Empire. There is ample talk of Pharisees, Sadducees, Philistines, Zealots, Edomites, Samaritans, and countless other denominations without any context. The reader is supposed to know about them or look them up elsewhere. Another hindrance to the flow of the story is Graves' characteristic deep dives into mythological themes and his attempt to form complicated - and at times dubious - connections between the various religions and their origins, always culminating in the concepts of the Triple Goddess, the Sacred King and his Tanist, and the Sacred Grove. These themes are familiar to readers of Robert Graves' mythologies but probably to no one else.
To the reader who successfully navigates around these shoals of Robert Graviness, the story that emerges is that Jesus is not the son of God but of Mary, matrilineal heiress of David, and Antipater, son of Kind Herod and rightful heir to the throne of Israel. This position, though vastly improbable, resolves the apparent contradiction in the New Testament that claims that Jesus is a descendant of David from Joseph, but also Joseph is not his real father, and at the same time eliminates an unnecessary miracle. The story of Jesus' birth, together with a parallel and equally unlikely narrative of king Herod trying to restore a pre-Jehovah religion based on the Egyptian God Set (long story), occupies half of the book.
I found the part that follows, Jesus as a child and young man, quite boring as it is filled with lengthy discussions about Mosaic law and various other religious and mythological topics. I am guilty of skipping a few pages here and there. Then at some point, the miracles start, which surprised me because I had assumed that the author was going to avoid miracles. But Robert had other plans. He accepts some miracles as valid, mainly healings and exorcisms, whereas others, like the water into wine, he considers merely symbolic acts that were later misinterpreted as miracles by the ignorant Greek Christians. It turns out that the author does not object to miracles as much as he objects to mythological inconsistency.
The last part of the book follows the New Testament narrative quite closely, but with a typical Graves twist, although the acts and words spoken are re-enacted exactly, the intentions of the people behind them were completely different. The big innovation is that Jesus realizes that the time of Salvation has not come and completely changes his plan from establishing the New Kingdom to becoming the Scapegoat that is supposed to absorb all the sins of the people of Israel. This interpretation serves to explain the "angry" Jesus incidents such as the cleansing of the Temple and the cursing of the fig tree. There is also an amusing invention of alternative motives concerning the behavior of governor Pontius Pilate and the Tetrarch (for Judea no longer has a king) Herod Antipas. In the end, the book is an alternative interpretation of Christianity that makes it consistent with its Hebraic and mythological roots, and as such, it is kind of a religious book, though the author did not care to develop it into dogma.
The first part of the book is entertaining enough but made tedious by the technicalities concerning various Jewish sects and regions around the inception of the Roman Empire. There is ample talk of Pharisees, Sadducees, Philistines, Zealots, Edomites, Samaritans, and countless other denominations without any context. The reader is supposed to know about them or look them up elsewhere. Another hindrance to the flow of the story is Graves' characteristic deep dives into mythological themes and his attempt to form complicated - and at times dubious - connections between the various religions and their origins, always culminating in the concepts of the Triple Goddess, the Sacred King and his Tanist, and the Sacred Grove. These themes are familiar to readers of Robert Graves' mythologies but probably to no one else.
To the reader who successfully navigates around these shoals of Robert Graviness, the story that emerges is that Jesus is not the son of God but of Mary, matrilineal heiress of David, and Antipater, son of Kind Herod and rightful heir to the throne of Israel. This position, though vastly improbable, resolves the apparent contradiction in the New Testament that claims that Jesus is a descendant of David from Joseph, but also Joseph is not his real father, and at the same time eliminates an unnecessary miracle. The story of Jesus' birth, together with a parallel and equally unlikely narrative of king Herod trying to restore a pre-Jehovah religion based on the Egyptian God Set (long story), occupies half of the book.
I found the part that follows, Jesus as a child and young man, quite boring as it is filled with lengthy discussions about Mosaic law and various other religious and mythological topics. I am guilty of skipping a few pages here and there. Then at some point, the miracles start, which surprised me because I had assumed that the author was going to avoid miracles. But Robert had other plans. He accepts some miracles as valid, mainly healings and exorcisms, whereas others, like the water into wine, he considers merely symbolic acts that were later misinterpreted as miracles by the ignorant Greek Christians. It turns out that the author does not object to miracles as much as he objects to mythological inconsistency.
The last part of the book follows the New Testament narrative quite closely, but with a typical Graves twist, although the acts and words spoken are re-enacted exactly, the intentions of the people behind them were completely different. The big innovation is that Jesus realizes that the time of Salvation has not come and completely changes his plan from establishing the New Kingdom to becoming the Scapegoat that is supposed to absorb all the sins of the people of Israel. This interpretation serves to explain the "angry" Jesus incidents such as the cleansing of the Temple and the cursing of the fig tree. There is also an amusing invention of alternative motives concerning the behavior of governor Pontius Pilate and the Tetrarch (for Judea no longer has a king) Herod Antipas. In the end, the book is an alternative interpretation of Christianity that makes it consistent with its Hebraic and mythological roots, and as such, it is kind of a religious book, though the author did not care to develop it into dogma.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 12, 2021
Publicada en 1946 "Rey Jesús" es una de las primeras ficciones históricas de carácter heterodoxo sobre la vida de Jesús de Nazaret. Robert Graves utiliza para ello casi todas las fuentes disponibles históricas, ya sean los evangelios canónicos, los gnósticos, el Talmud, el judeorromano Flavio Josefo... todo ello da a la novela un aire de una gran erudición -marca Graves- pero que narrativamente se muestra muy lastrada por el maremágnum de nombres, hipótesis, lugares y explicaciones que Graves nos cuenta.
Graves dedica especial atención al presunto origen de la familia de Jesús, emparentados con David nada menos, todo eso hace que el verdadero protagonista tarde más de 200 páginas en aparecer. Toda la primera parte me parece bastante farragosa y literariamente sin fuerza.
En cambio la acción gana bastante en el último tercio cuando pragmáticamente noveliza el Nuevo Testamento y especula mucho menos, párrafos mas cortos, diálogos más directos e historia más atrayente; aunque no es necesario una novela para descubrir su interés, basta con leer a Mateo por ejemplo.
Interesante la lectura de esta obra, pero no es imprescindible ni es de lo mejor de Graves.
Graves dedica especial atención al presunto origen de la familia de Jesús, emparentados con David nada menos, todo eso hace que el verdadero protagonista tarde más de 200 páginas en aparecer. Toda la primera parte me parece bastante farragosa y literariamente sin fuerza.
En cambio la acción gana bastante en el último tercio cuando pragmáticamente noveliza el Nuevo Testamento y especula mucho menos, párrafos mas cortos, diálogos más directos e historia más atrayente; aunque no es necesario una novela para descubrir su interés, basta con leer a Mateo por ejemplo.
Interesante la lectura de esta obra, pero no es imprescindible ni es de lo mejor de Graves.
August 15, 2023
The most provocative of Graves' historical fictions. A real eye-opener, and a real page-turner, although the references and cross-references to scripture and lore are as dense as the "begats" in the Old Testament. But they all lead to exciting turns of story, and the ultimate portrait of Jesus is fascinating and moving.
November 17, 2020
2,5 stars.
April 6, 2020
A must-read for any Christian, especially the esoterically-inclined. A paradigm-expanding book, befitting for where the Spirit of Christ may lead. For those consumed with the desire to know who Jesus really was, this is the book to read.
December 23, 2020
No sé por qué tenía este libro por casa, pero ando expurgando estanterías y decidí darle una oportunidad. Cuando lo abrí, vi que tenía un marcapáginas en la página 35, signo de una oportunidad previa que ni siquiera recordaba. Mal empezamos.
Esta historia podía haberme gustado. Es de Robert Graves, el autor de Yo, Claudio, novela que leí en su momento y que me encantó. Y se presenta como una supuesta investigación realizada en los años 90 del siglo I por un alejandrino no cristiano, que no cree ni poco ni mucho en la historia de Jesús tal y como la cuenta la Biblia y quiere explicar lo que pasó de verdad. Esta clase de juegos literarios me interesan bastante.
Así, la novela arranca desde los abuelos de Jesús, Joaquín y Ana, y te viene a contar que Jesús es en realidad hijo secreto de Antipatro y María. ¿Y quién es Antipatro? El hijo de Herodes el Grande, último rey de la casa de David. Por tanto, Jesús sería realmente el representante de la monarquía judía. No sería un profeta religioso universal, sino un reformador religioso judío, consciente de su majestad, que se preocupa por la forma en que los judíos piadosos tratan a los parias de su tierra y que por ello los acoge. Muchos de los milagros y prédicas de Jesús quedan reinterpretados para que cuadren con este nuevo marco.
Y si se hubiera quedado aquí, pues bien. Pero Robert Graves no quería escribir una novela. Como queda claro en el erudito epílogo -que he tenido el gusto de saltarme hacia la mitad-, quería escribir un libro para explicar sus locas, locas teorías acerca de la Biblia, en la que reconcilie los diversos pasajes del Nuevo Testamento. Si no quieres escribir una novela, lo que sale no es una novela. Los personajes existen para la historia, pero no tienen ninguna profundidad, ¡ni siquiera el de Jesús! La magia y los milagros existen y explican muchas de las cosas que no admiten ninguna otra lógica. Y, sobre todo, el estilo es plúmbeo como él solo, lleno de parábolas, canciones, salmos, diálogos sabios y otras mil cosas que ni me iban ni me venían.
Supongo que si conociera bien la Biblia podría haber disfrutado más de la novela, pero como no ha sido así, esto se queda en dos estrellas y el libro definitivamente sale de casa.
Esta historia podía haberme gustado. Es de Robert Graves, el autor de Yo, Claudio, novela que leí en su momento y que me encantó. Y se presenta como una supuesta investigación realizada en los años 90 del siglo I por un alejandrino no cristiano, que no cree ni poco ni mucho en la historia de Jesús tal y como la cuenta la Biblia y quiere explicar lo que pasó de verdad. Esta clase de juegos literarios me interesan bastante.
Así, la novela arranca desde los abuelos de Jesús, Joaquín y Ana, y te viene a contar que Jesús es en realidad hijo secreto de Antipatro y María. ¿Y quién es Antipatro? El hijo de Herodes el Grande, último rey de la casa de David. Por tanto, Jesús sería realmente el representante de la monarquía judía. No sería un profeta religioso universal, sino un reformador religioso judío, consciente de su majestad, que se preocupa por la forma en que los judíos piadosos tratan a los parias de su tierra y que por ello los acoge. Muchos de los milagros y prédicas de Jesús quedan reinterpretados para que cuadren con este nuevo marco.
Y si se hubiera quedado aquí, pues bien. Pero Robert Graves no quería escribir una novela. Como queda claro en el erudito epílogo -que he tenido el gusto de saltarme hacia la mitad-, quería escribir un libro para explicar sus locas, locas teorías acerca de la Biblia, en la que reconcilie los diversos pasajes del Nuevo Testamento. Si no quieres escribir una novela, lo que sale no es una novela. Los personajes existen para la historia, pero no tienen ninguna profundidad, ¡ni siquiera el de Jesús! La magia y los milagros existen y explican muchas de las cosas que no admiten ninguna otra lógica. Y, sobre todo, el estilo es plúmbeo como él solo, lleno de parábolas, canciones, salmos, diálogos sabios y otras mil cosas que ni me iban ni me venían.
Supongo que si conociera bien la Biblia podría haber disfrutado más de la novela, pero como no ha sido así, esto se queda en dos estrellas y el libro definitivamente sale de casa.
April 25, 2016
La recreación de la vida de jesús de nazareth por parte de robert graves no alcanza el nivel de su famosa yo claudio pero no deja de ser interesante leer las hipótesis que plantea sobre lo que pudo ser la vida de el personaje histórico más influyente de los últimos dos milenios se sea creyente o no.
December 17, 2021
On re-reading this, I appreciated just how thoughtful a revisiting of the life of Jesus it was. Don’t skip the afterword: the author explains the basis for many of his decisions.
August 3, 2011
An smashing view of ancient history around Jesus lifetime.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews