I feel that this book is on of the best books that I have ever read. This book is filled with wonderful pictures, and wonderful things that the Bill Clintons Legecy to Africa ment to the people. It's amazing that a person in less then two months can come up with such a wonderful book. It is a part of histery. I feel that at my age it is a book to share with the childern. I also feel that as my aunt she is a very talented woman. I have shared this book with many people and I feel that there are many more things to come from this wonderful book.

Clinton Bennett is clearly both a liberal Christian believer and a pluralist. Here he presents an anthology of images of Jesus, both historical and current, arranged in insider (Christian) and outsider (non-Christian) categories. The book gets to grips with questions of interpretation and image of pictures of Jesus starting from the belief that Jesus is interpretation from the first. Interpretation, for Bennett, leads to plurality, even if only as an empirical fact. He suggests this mandates an attitude of humility towards Jesus in place of a more dogmatic, and unsubstantiatable, certainty.

Bennett is clearly concerned not to sideline what might be described as marginal voices on Jesus. He writes in a consciously inclusive way. Space is given here to black, feminist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, film and fictional images in addition to more traditional ones and ones more related to the study of Jesus as an historical figure (i.e. that which is academically known as the Quest of the Historical Jesus).

The book is clearly aimed at a general readership. It contains a chapter on sources for the life of Jesus which, to a student or scholar of Jesus, would be largely mundane and uninspiring. Yet Bennett explicitly believes that the sources wrote about Jesus what they already believed to be true. If only he could have written more about this. Indeed, the trouble with this anthology, as with others, is that there is plenty of detailing of various images of Jesus but oh so little critique of these images. At one point Bennett remarks that we need to read not only the images of Jesus but the biography of the imager of Jesus. This is more intriguing stuff but Bennett doesn't really interact any further with his interesting suggestion.

Finally Bennett subsumes Jesus, in his image, under the rubric "a liberated and liberating Jesus". Bennett, who was a Christian missionary in a former life, offers us a liberal Jesus who can bring us peace, love and harmony. He writes, "Only when Jesus is Chinese for the Chinese, Indian for the Indians, will he be regarded as truly FOR these contexts". In this he may be right but he does not discuss this theoretically so much as land the belief in our laps without further discussion. This I regard as an oversight and a lack of persuasion on his part. There is also little attention to the Jesus of history as a constraint on pictures of Jesus (whilst the Jesus of history is discussed as a subject in itself). Indeed, a discussion of constraint more generally seems mandated by the subject matter here. Bennett offers us a tantalising and interesting selection of Jesus images, playing on what he remarks as "Christianity's belief in the translatability of the Gospel", but now I'm looking forward to the day when he can present us with a coherent presentation of how the multiplicity, plurality and translatability he presents might be regarded. Legitimate or legitimate? What controls, what should control, how Jesus is viewed? If Bennett's book be a guide, these questions are highly relevant for millions, if not billions of people.

In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images by Clinton Bennett (Continuum) gives a survey of the pious and academic inquiries into both the Jesus of Faith and of history and what is involved in seeing Jesus within the lights of many approaches. As an introduction to the study of Jesus this work offers both respect for faith and tradition as well as a critical and fair account of the many images of Jesus emerging from academic study of religious formation and scripture exegesis. In Search of Jesus is a good introduction to the field and is useful as a guide to current literature and major themes of study.

In Search of Muhammad by Clinton Bennett (Cassell) a survey of evidence for a biography of Muhammad that also provides some recognition of the pious dimensions of the meaning of the Prophet in Islamic thought. As an academic inquiry into both the Mohammad of Faith and of history this work provides an introductory account principal documents and traditions from which to draw an historical account of Muhammad. Bennett offers an orientation to the evidence that is usually either assumed or not discussed in traditional and popular accounts of the life of the Prophet. As an introduction to the critical study of what is involved in the biography of Muhammad, this work offers both respect for faith and tradition as well as a critical and fair account of the many critical views about of Muhammad emerging from academic study of social and religious formation of Islam and creation of the Qur'an as a scripture. In Search of Muhammad is a better than average introduction to the field and is useful as a guide to current literature and major themes of study.

...books regarding understanding Muhammad from a more Western (or Christian) point of view. Mr. Bennett is honest, sympathetic and drawn to Muhammad. The inclusion of his personal views actually adds depth to the book. He is not an 'orientalist' nor an 'apologeticist' nor is he a 'polemicist'. He is seeking an honest, objective view of who he was and who he is. His is one of the more honest and overly objective books I have encountered on the subject. He is drawn to Muhammad.

This can be used as both a criticism and a high compliment. The honesty with which he approaches the subject matter radiates and leaves the reader listening not to the intentions of the author but to the actual text and what is being said. Oftentimes books about Muhammad are so overly hostile that any objectivity flies out the window. On the flip side books on Muhammad often border on deifying him and objectivity is thus also lost.

Mr. Bennett's assessment of the sources reveals what can and can not be known and shows the diversity of how Muhammad is seen and understood. There is no monolithic Islam and there is no monolithic understanding of Muhammad. To an extent, Muhammad is almost (emphasis: almost) as mythic as the founders of other religions.

Reading this book will open the reader's eyes to a more educated approach to understanding the enduring appeal of Muhammad in the hearts of believers and the impact of Muhammad still felt on the world. The reader will come to know that what we so often hear about Muhammad is often either wrong, distorted or might even be rendered as mere folk tale (or, in today's jargon, an urban legend).

This is the diary of James Bennett, a young man who enlisted in the U.S. Dragoons in 1849 and served 7 years on the frontier at various posts in New Mexico. He encountered many figures known to history and traveled widely over the frontier from Texas to Wyoming to California.

Bennett's service saw him involved in battles with Indians, surveying the Gadsden Purchase and involved in the life of communities where American and Mexican cultures intermingled.

This book is a must for anyone interested in military history or life on the frontier prior to the Civil War

It is obvious from many posts regarding political book reviews that comments serve more to field a detest for one side of the political spectrum. Liberals, aka Democrats, want to bring up the negativies of Conservatives, aka Republicans, as a means of pointing out that one should not be criticizing when your own back yard has trash in it (Mr. Manges and Mr. Klinges). Conservatives want to embrace any publication that points out the horrors of the Liberal Agenda regardless of the lack of value in said publication (See the many reviews on books by Barbara Olson or the Limbaugh boys). There are many political sites for these opinions, but please do us all a favor and stick to a review of the book and not your unsolicited political opinion.

Mr. Gathercoal's assessment fails to recognize the point of this book. On many levels one can be criticized for their actions. The first Bush Presidency can be justly criticized for the Contra Affair. What Bennett does is to look at the public sentiment towards the "popular" president and why that is disturbing. Mr. Gathercoal's comment "70% of the American public liked Bill Clinton and wanted the case dropped" is just the point that Mr. Bennett is trying to make: that those 70% should have been outraged by the "moral" position taken by Mr. Clinton with regards to his lying to the American public. That is the point of the book, to note that the American public did not utilize a moral code to determine whether or not the President should be supported.

Mr. Bennett does, however, show his Conservative bend at times which can ignite the defense mechanisim in anyone who wonders why, if politicians are so concerened with morality, that they are only so when it is not connected with their political party. For that some of the "liberal reviews" do have merritt when bringing up the failings of the Right. But I think to a greater degree what Mr. Bennett does is to use this incident as a foundation for an attitude about people and politics that we, the American public, should employ not just to the Democrats but to Mr. Bennett's party as well and maybe if Mr. Bennett would turn his pen on his own party he would find that he would be more credible to more people.

The book is well written and you will find yourself able to go through it in one sitting. It is best to come to this book with a mind that is open not to the subject of but rather the philosophy behind why the book was written. Some may not be able to this and it is understandable. If you have a bent towards Moral Relativism then this book will not convince you to change your stripes. It does not work as a harsh philosophical investigation into morality. If you are one who feels that the moral compass of America is off North then this book will justify that sentiment. If you sit somewhere the middle and can read the book without trying to minimalize the attacks by saying "well the other side did this" then I believe you will find some of Mr. Bennett's points worthy of reflection

POST NOTE: A comment to the first person who voted that this review was not helpful: thank you for satisfying the attitude mentioned in my first paragraph. The idea behind a review is to add to the dialogue about the subject, thereby allowing the reader an understanding of content before reading the book. My guess is that your vote was solely based on attitude within the review rather than whether you found the review to be helpful to you in understanding what is occuring between the pages. You might honesty and objectivity to be beneficial to you in your everday life as opposed to walking the "party line" like a mindless automaton.

It is interesting to note that people either love this book or hate it for it almost always gets either five stars or one star. And the "one star" folks are very fond of using terms such as "holier than thou" and "puritanical" to describe Bennett's position. It is my opinion that when you have the evidence on your side, you use the evidence to support your assertions--which is precisely what Bennett does. When you have no meaningful evidence, you pound the table and start calling the other side names or blow smoke screens with facts to do not matter.

I feel that Bennett shows tremendous courage and leadership by unabashedly espousing good, moral principles and supporting his positions with sound, logical judgement. That is why this is such an EXCELLENT book! He successfully outlines exactly why we, as American citizens, should be outraged by what is going on in the White House right now. Right is right and wrong is wrong--Bennett makes no excuses.

Bennett's best point--being "judgmental" is key to any responsible society. He states, "Without being 'judgmental,' Americans would never have put an end to slavery, outlawed child labor, emancipated women, or ushered in the civil rights movement. Nor would we have prevailed against Nazism and Soviet communism, or known how to explain our opposition." Not only is it good that we judge our president--it is essential to the continued existance of this nation!

Read this book and help make this country what the Constitution intends it to be!

This book made me remember what it was like to be proud to be an American. The president's continuing cover-up has been allowed by our country's lack of outrage, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. The Clinton administration's attitude toward those seeking the truth is revealed as what one White House official has dubbed, "our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr." William Bennett brings up an interesting fact--The Clinton Justice Department has brought a case that involved lying under oath about oral sex in a civil case to a perjury conviction. In U.S. v. Battalino, the Dept. of Justice prosecuted a Veterans Administration psychiatrist who falsely testified under oath that she did not have a sexual encounter during a June 27, 1991 appointment with Ed Arthur. However, Arthur had recorded phone conversations with his doctor in which she referred to the rendezvous. The doctor pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, was sentenced to one year of probabion, six months of home detention and electronic monitoring, and fined $3,600 for the same crime as our president.

Reagan and Bush told no lies? Keep dreaming

Methinks the self-proclaimed pillar of virtue named Bennett doth protest too much. He does casuistic cartwheels and Puritan pirouettes in order to project continuing Republican shame over Watergate onto the Clintons: a stomped-to-death tactic that does not, has not, and shall not yield another bitter grape, let alone the wine of salvation. Bennett's collage of Utopian morality, tired, glittering denials of human nature, and one self-replicating argumentum ad hominem after another speaks volumes about the hypocrisy, cynicism, and self-serving affronts to critical reason that will come to be seen as the true Reagan legacy. But why expect more of a failed "Drug Czar", who never quite succeeded in recovering from his addiction to tobacco? That anyone could take Bennett's death-knell of statesmanship and partisan harmony seriously suggests that outrage indeed is dead: The title says it all, if not quite as its author intended.

What more can be said about Bennett's book than the reactions to it from those on the left. Bennett knows how to frustrate those who defend the likes of Clinton: employ logic and analytic philosophy against them. Wonderful book by a man who lives the virtues.