I just find it deeply ironic that there seems to be such an effort to accomodate a Jew who has become Buddhist and insists that this is not a violation of her "Yiddishkeit", and the opposition to Jews who choose to believe in Jesus and yet remain Jewish.

A significant number of Westerners practicing Buddhism are Jews. What is the attraction of Buddhism? In this book, Boorstein shares how her experience of twenty years of meditation practice deepened and enriched her Judaism. Using her own story she shows how mindfulness meditation can lead to the appreciation of every moment, which imbues any religion with renewed meaning. I also recommend "Open Your Mind, Open Your Life: A Little Book of Eastern Wisdom" by Taro Gold - another great Jewish/Buddhist teacher.

This was a gentle and satisfying read for me, with a good connection of the commonalities of two ancient religions. This author expressed the her evolving sense of self with sincerity and honesty. Bottom line, it made me feel good.

Imagine the Tao Te Ching translated into Islamic terms, the Rg Veda reworked as a Judaic text, the Diamond Sutra translated as a Christian text; you are imagining something similar to these reworkings of the Psalms by Stephen Mitchell. While Norman Fischer in his Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms tried to translate the psalms into the universal religious concepts shared with Zen Buddhism, Mitchell recreates the psalms with Zen-specific terminology and contemporary scientific terminology which may clash with the images of the original psalms.

Example: from Psalm 148 "Praise him, you bodhisattvas, / you angels burning with his love. / Praise him in the depths of matter; / praise him in atomic space. / Praise him, you whirling electrons, / you unimaginable quarks."

The result is a set of poems which are sometimes "selected & adapted" as the book title implies, but which are often "inspired by". In those poems which speak from a consistent viewpoint, in which the mix of Judaism, Zen and science does not clash, there are excellent poems - the quality and sensativity one associates with Mitchell. Otherwise, this is one of his weaker efforts. It may be read as poetry but does not serve as a way into the psalms.

When you open to Psalm 1 and find that it begins: "Blessed are the man and the woman / who have grown beyond their greed," you know that this is not your fathers' Psalter.

Fair enough. Stephen Mitchell gives fair warning in his title (it's "a," not "the" Book of Psalms) and his short introduction (in which he states his intent to "[s]ing to the Lord a _new_ song" by following the spirit rather than the letter).

And like all of Mitchell's work, these are lovely poetic renderings. But be aware that quite a few of them are (or at least include) improvisations that depart radically from the original text. Then, too, the local references to Jerusalem and/or the Temple have been erased and replaced with more universal allusions. (Other portions of the text are rendered even more politically correct.)

My biggest beef is that Mitchell has turned most of the "complaining" Psalms (when he includes them at all; there are only fifty "psalms" in this volume) into statements of spiritual acquiescence. And he characterizes that acquiescence itself in terms that are foreign to the Psalms: e.g. Psalm 133's "my heart is not proud" is Buddhized to "my mind is not noisy with desires."

But it's excellent poetry, and Mitchell at least has the good sense not to stray too far from the text when he renders perennial favorites like Psalm 23.

As poetry, then, this book is one of Mitchell's better works. Just don't expect the biblical Psalms.

Regrettably this author only treats us to a selection of psalms, not the whole psalter, but his translation from the Hebrew into contemporary idiom is strikingly beautiful, as one might expect from a poet. This book opened my eyes to new meanings in some of my favorite psalms.

If you've never programmed anything before, Java is the best language to learn, and this is the best book to teach it. This book doesn't just teach the language, it teaches object oriented computer science. The most important thing in choosing computer books is making sure you are the book's intended audience. For someone who's never programmed, it's perfect. However, I don't think an experienced programmer needs to go over everything from the beginning, unless it's someone who has a lot of trouble understanding OOP. It's still a great book that covers a lot extremely well.

Down to Earth examples and logical flow. You lear Java and OOP design basics as you follow building a simulation of a coffee vending machine. Great humor, easy reading...

I found this book the best to clear the basic fundamentals of the language. It definately is the stepping stone with a strong foundation for all those who want to learn Java on their own. The language is lucid, easy to undrestand. The OOP's concepts which are pictorically described makes a permanent impression on the reader such that the concepts are not mingled. As mentioned no prior requirement of C++ is required. I certainly do consider this book my Bible(no exaggeration). For advanced concepts I may refer to some other books giving a detail on the topic but for the fundamentals I stick to this book.

I really tried to finish this book, but there is only so much preaching one can take. The feeling reading this is that there is less of a translation being presented than the author's interpretation of the work. After being told several times what God thinks, or must have thought, or what God really meant but was misstated as the stories were passed along and re-written, the entire basis for a "new translation" seemed suspect. Most people will be better served by reading mainstream translations (with study notes for in-depth analysis). Many of these are written by scores of biblical scholars collaborating together and working with original texts. NIV, NASV, or other respected translations should be baseline reading...then interpretations such as this one can be read critically.

If you asked Stephen Mitchell to translate the telephone book, he'd probably come up with a brilliantly lucid work bristling with insights into the nature of spiritual reality. But you'd have to wade through an introduction that reads: "I found that the entirety of K-N was a later interpolation by a talented but spiritually inferior redactor, and moreover J is clearly a doublet of I just as V is a doublet of U. I have therefore taken the liberty of rearranging the alphabet in a way that felt authentic to me, following the spirit rather than the letter."

_Genesis_ is probably the clearest example of this tendency, as it's one of very few Mitchell works that's _supposed_ to be a complete and literal translation rather than a poetic rendering. And the translation, as always, is very, very good -- and very, very clear.

Unfortunately he chops the text to bits -- relegating the allegedly inauthentic bits to the appendices and notes, and explaining in the introduction all the things he thinks are wrong with the "redacted" version of Genesis. It's almost as though there's a conservation law at work: when Mitchell can't mess with the translation itself, his editorial views emerge somewhere else, with a vengeance.

I do not at all mean to imply that he has nothing important to say. On the contrary, some of his commentary is most helpful. He explains some very nice touches in his translation, and he does offer what seem to me to be some deep and genuine insights. (And he also does a nice job of showing how his translation is different from those of others.)

But I do find myself almost gasping for breath when I see the credulity with which he buys into the JEDP "documentary hypothesis" -- and, for that matter, the sheer chutzpah with which he determines just which bits of the text are later additions by "second- and third-rate writers" [p. xxxv] and even "dullard[s]" [p. xl]. I'm not terribly impressed with the usual arguments that the text is full of contradictions and awkward "doublets" in the first place; nor does Mitchell even pretend to make any effort to resolve them. (And neither have I found two authors who would divide the texts in the same way based on these features.) But as I noted long ago in my review of Kikawada and Quinn's _Before Abraham Was_ (which see), if all these alleged problems didn't bother the alleged "redactor," why do we think they would have bothered a single original author? Why not assume they are there for pedagogical reasons rather than inadvertently left there through mistake or stupidity?

Mitchell is also inclined to make little "arguments from moral indignation," in some cases even based on the _silence_ of the text on certain points. For example, he is properly repulsed by the manner in which the supposedly virtuous Lot offers his virgin daughters to the crowd beating on his door. But it is beyond me why he imagines -- for it must be imagination he uses here -- that the biblical author did _not_ object to this action.

But the reader interested primarily in Mitchell's own spiritual progress will be happy to hear that the "stories took on a stunning clarity" for him after he had removed "coat after coat of lacquer" [p. xxxv]. In other words: as usual, when Mitchell removes the parts he doesn't agree with, he is quite unaccountably stunned and amazed to find that he likes what's left.

On the whole, his translation is well worth reading. But be sure to keep the aspirin handy, and to put any breakable objects somewhere out of reach.

As someone who has recently been fascinated with new translations of the book of Genesis, I found Mitchell's to be one of the best. I call it 'very necessary' because I believe that whether or not one reads the Bible as literature or religious truth, this translation does a superb job in recovering the text from centuries of doctrinal interpretation and positioning the reader for an honest assessment of Genesis. The God of these stories is a complex, capricious, and ultimately unpredicatable character. The Lord is not a likeable deity. And, in my opinion, for a Christian or Jew who has problems with this portrayal of the Lord, read the older versions again. They more or less can reveal the same interpretation to an intelligent reader, and even provoke an interest in how these stories have been read and misread through the discourse of doctrine, of everyday media, and why. This is how I find Mitchell's translation and interpretation valuable, because it questions this Lord. Mitchell looks at the stories of the rejected Cain, the slighted Esau, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and others and reevaluates them with a critical but fully appreciative approach.

Stephen Mitchell does something almost unforgivable in this book by stripping core tenets of the Christian faith from his "translation" of the New Testament. Something strange happens, though: God's truth shines through anyway. The author parses and paraphrases, and leaves out virtually the entire Gospel, but the reader can tell what he's aiming for.

This is not, as I see it, an attempt to rewrite the Gospel or translate the Gospel, but rather an attempt to show particular facets in an enlightening way. The reason the gross omissions are forgivable is that he takes parts of Jesus' teachings and makes them shine far more brightly than before. The parable of the Prodigal Son, in particular, receives the attention that it should. Mitchell might have problems with what he considers the more "mythological" aspects of Christianity, but his writing demonstrates a real understanding of the concepts of grace, forgiveness, and divine providence. Yes, a lot of this is because these are the facets of Christianity that dovetail with his Zen philosophy and training, but this remains the strength of the book.

What every reader should realize about this work, though, is that it cannot be considered a definitive translation of the Gospel. It is neither scholarly nor historical. Rather, it is poetic and interpretive, and the author prefers to present the gist of the text, particularly where a precise translation doesn't translate context or connotations. Obviously, the problem with this is that the author's subjective judgments can and do get in the way.

The main reason that I give this book four stars rather than three is that the author is explicitly honest about his motives and intentions, and those parts of the Gospel he chooses to translate are helpful both to unbelievers who are trying to understand Christianity and to believers as extensions to traditional Bible study.

Finally, while the whole book is technically blasphemy, it helped me return to my faith after a long hiatus. Make of that what you will.

Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is something you can achieve while you are living on this earth, not simply a reward that you get after you die "for being good," and for "believing." People who say this book is no good are the types of people who never think about anything for themselves and just believe what they are told because it is the safest thing to do. In fact they are jealous of those who can articulate their own opinions as well as Mitchell does. I strongly question the mind of a person who uses words like "blasphemy" to criticize the honest inquiry of others; I feel they need to grow up and reach a more adult stage of spritual understanding. I will grant that the translation of "son of Mary" as "Mary's bastard" may be assuming a little too much as far as what the villagers in Nazareth meant by the phrase (it could simply mean that Mary was the only living parent and that she was present there in the synagogue). But with true faith, it doesnt matter if Jesus was illegitimate! How would that change anything about what he said and did? God bless.

Many thanks to Mitchell for restoring my interest and faith in the gospels. His comprehensive introduction and commentary following his rendition of the good news was very helpful to making up my own mind as to what message God was sending us in the person of Jesus. I recognize the love God was communicating in Mitchell's book. A must read for all truth seekers!

Stephen Mitchell has been scammed and is not receiveing any money from Dorance Publishing. So if you have any decency in the world and for people like him you will not buy this book. If you can help me help Stephen Mitchell please contact me at Stevejmil@Yahoo.com. Other than this Evil, unwritten chapter, this is a good book. I am only giving 0 stars to the publisher and 5 to the book. Thank You and God Bless you and him.

I have talked to Stephen Mithchell and we really feel like it is a good book. He trying to make a movie based on the book and buying tyhis book would really help on making the movie.

The poem, "Song of Myself", by Walt Whitman is heavily laced with Marxism. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx called for the abolition of private property. In doing so, Marx hoped to eliminate the selfish nature of capitalism, which he believed caused people to become greedy. By setting up a communal system, society could rid itself of material competition. Whitman too illustrates this principle in the poem by stating, "Every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you."
Marx also reacted against the social and religious morals prevalent in society, Whitman agrees by affirming, "No standard above men and women, or apart from them. No more modest than immodest" as well as, "If I worship one thing more than another, it shall be the spread of my own body, or any part of it." Both of these men contribute to the belief that people sin only as a result of standards placed upon them from external factors. If society were to eliminate these factors such as morality and religion, the "naturally good" person would have no reason to sin.
The most important belief that Marx adhered to was a future revolution in which the oppressed overthrow their oppressors. Whitman labels the oppressed "forbidden voices" and states that "Through me forbidden voices; Voice of sexes and lusts-voices veil'd, and I remove the veil." By removing the blinding veil, the oppressed can see their oppression and revolt against oppressors.

As with so much of Stephen Mitchell's work, the most important thing is to know what it is before you buy it. It may be exactly what you want, or it may be just the opposite; there's usually not much room in between.

In the present case, Mitchell has done something that some readers might consider pretty hubristic and perhaps even sacrilegious: he has produced an edited version of Walt Whitman's great "Song of Myself" that corresponds to no published version whatsoever.

How? Well, he started with the original (1855) edition of the poem, and then considered _every single change_ Whitman ever made in the poem clear up to his death in 1892. If Mitchell thought the change improved the poem, he left it in; if not, not. The result, for obvious reasons, is a "Song of Myself" that Whitman himself never actually wrote.

That's _not_ necessarily a bad thing. I respect Mitchell's taste and judgment, and I happen to agree with him that some of Whitman's later alterations made the poem worse. In fact I think Mitchell's edition is extremely fine.

But some readers may be looking for a version of "Song of Myself" that reflects Whitman's taste and judgment rather than Mitchell's. So let the buyer be aware.

At any rate I share Mitchell's high estimation of this poem and I'm happy that he's published his edition of it. Whitman belongs with Emerson and Thoreau on a shortlist of great American sages; this single poem is a large part of the reason why.

This book is really a guide to traveling if you are Jewish and want to go to services and eat Kosher during your travels. It has VERY minimal information on what sites in each location may be of interest to a traveler looking for Jewish oriented tourist sites. For example, the description of the Ann Frank House in Amsterdam is 14 words, plus the address, telephone and hours. If all you are looking for is listing of restaurants and hotels, this is exactly what you want and deserves at least 4 stars; if you are looking for a tour guide with an emphasis on sites of interest to Jewish travelers, look elsewhere.

If you want a scholarly book that brilliantly deals with who Jesus was, read Ravi Zacharias's "Jesus Among Other Gods." There is an adult as well as a teen version of Zacharias's book. It contains the answers you seek. Mitchell's book, however, lacks substance, adequate research, and fair analysis. I challenge Mitchell to read Zacharias's book as well and see if he still holds to the theories he puts forth here. It'll be tough -- Zacharias is a brilliant theologian who makes his case beautifully and thoroughly in "Jesus Among Other Gods." If Mitchell can come up with a substantial refutation of Zacharias's arguments, I'd like to see it (yes, Mr. Mitchell, that's a challenge to you.)

If you want a book that explores which of Jesus' sayings are really authentic, look elsewhere: Mitchell is so wrapped up in being P.C. and "spiritual" that he turns this book into a mixture of misinformation and half-truths. Another caution: Mitchell is not concerned with God in any Judeo-Christian or even theistic sense of the word, only as another "reality."

For starters, as it has been pointed out in reviews on Mitchell's other book, "The Gospel According to Jesus", Mitchell's criteria for deciding whether a saying attributed to Jesus is authentic or not is whether it sounds right to him! How unscholarly and self-centered can you get? In the introduction he compares what he is doing to Thomas Jefferson's version of the gospels (which leaves out the Resurrection entirely) except that "unlike him, I was able to use the precision tools of modern scholarship. I also used the spiritual intuition that I had deepened over many years of Zen training. I selected and translated only the passages that seemed to me authentic accounts and sayings of Jesus, and I left out every passage that seemed like a later addition." (xxiv-v) Listen to him! Does he really consider that a better method than Jefferson's?

The biggest flaw is that Mitchell is quite haphazard in documenting and citing biblical passages. One example of a passage: "The kingdom of God doesn't come if you watch for it. It isn't in heaven. It doesn't come only after you die. No one can point and say 'it is here' or 'it is there.' For the kingdom of God is within you." (22). This should be from Luke 17:20-2, except it doesn't say "It doesn't come only after you die." This is a belief Mitchell would like the reader to believe, closer to Buddhism than biblical Christianity. In many places Mitchell forgets to indicate where the biblical text ends and his own opinion begins, which unscolarly and dishonest. Also, not every biblical passage in the book is cited, not even in the notes at the end of the book. He even disregards how much of the New Testament is directly from the Old Testament. People who want factual evidence to study, shun this book.

If you want to decide whether this book is for you, skip to the Afterword: "The authentic Jesus, as I see him, was not a divine being (whatever that means), born of a virgin mother, surrounded by angels and wise men, and essentially different from all other humans. ... At the age of about thirty, he had an extraordinary experience of waking up to the truth. ... He was a man in love with God, who gave himself completely to the acts of human kindness that proceeded from that love. At this point you may be thinking, 'Jesus teachings sound wonderful, but what good are they? What do they mean for me? ... How can I love bigots and racists, for example? ... These are questions people have been asking for thousands of years. The fact is that no one, not even the greatest teacher, can show you how to love. A teacher can point you in the right direction, but that's about all. 'Some say my teaching is nonsense,' Lao-tzu says in the Tao Te Ching... But how do you look inside yourself? One way is meditation ... Another way ... is called the Work of Byron Katie. (NOTE: she is Mitchell's wife! To me, he's just offering more of the same) Whatever method you find, when you're able to look inside yourself deeply and understand your own mind, your life will become more peaceful. ... So the best way to follow Jesus' teachings is not to follow them at all but to live them. When you're able to look inside yourself deeply, you'll find that the teacher who taught Jesus will teach you. That teacher has no name. It is closer to you than breathing, nearer to you than your own thoughts." (109-112)

I should point out that Mitchell gets some of the historical points in Jesus' life correct, mainly that he was a Jew and crucifixion was a horrible way to die, but that's about it. Mitchell's Jesus might as well be another new-age teacher. Ultimately, it seems to me, you can search for truth either inside or outside yourself. If you are flawed, then what you find within yourself will also be flawed. As for contributing to my search for truth, I was disappointed by this book.

I picked up this book at the local libarary, thinking it would be a scholarly analysis of the scriptures. When Mitchell claimed that he had done "research" and discovered which parts of the New Testament were added and which might really be attributable to christ, I thought he would present more evidence than "Anyone can tell Jesus wouldn't have said THAT!" ...

If you want to read feel-good, new-agey ramblings about Jesus, this is the book for you. If, like me, you were looking for a book that provides an in-depth, well thought out, well-researched, scholarly investigation of the nature of the original jesus, go elsewhere, without a doubt.

The only explanation I can see here is that this book is listed for "young adults." I can only hope this is why Mitchell dumbed the book down so much - because otherwise he's not a very good writer on top of everything else!