What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel in Brief
"Are you acquainted with Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief? At its time, this book virtually kept me alive... If you are not acquainted with it, then you cannot imagine what an effect it can have upon a person." – Ludwig Wittgenstein, in a letter to Ludwig von Ficker.
The Gospel in Brief is Leo Tolstoy's integration of the four biblical Gospels into a single account of the life of Jesus. Inspired in large measure by Tolstoy's meticulous study of the original Greek versions of the Bible, The Gospel in Brief is a highly original fusion of biblical texts and Tolstoy's own influential religious views. Tolstoy explains that his goal is a solution to "the problem of life," not an answer to theological or historical questions. As a result, he sets aside such issues as Jesus' genealogy and divinity, or whether Jesus in fact walked on water. Instead, he focuses on the words and teachings of Jesus, stripped of what Tolstoy regarded as the Church's distortions and focus on dogma and ritual. The result is a work that emphasizes the individual's spiritual condition in a chaotic and indifferent world. Like Tolstoy's celebrated literary achievements, The Gospel in Brief has the distinct bearing of a classic; in its urgency and directness it is remarkably current, as if it were written only yesterday rather than a century ago.
The Gospel in Brief is Leo Tolstoy's integration of the four biblical Gospels into a single account of the life of Jesus. Inspired in large measure by Tolstoy's meticulous study of the original Greek versions of the Bible, The Gospel in Brief is a highly original fusion of biblical texts and Tolstoy's own influential religious views. Tolstoy explains that his goal is a solution to "the problem of life," not an answer to theological or historical questions. As a result, he sets aside such issues as Jesus' genealogy and divinity, or whether Jesus in fact walked on water. Instead, he focuses on the words and teachings of Jesus, stripped of what Tolstoy regarded as the Church's distortions and focus on dogma and ritual. The result is a work that emphasizes the individual's spiritual condition in a chaotic and indifferent world. Like Tolstoy's celebrated literary achievements, The Gospel in Brief has the distinct bearing of a classic; in its urgency and directness it is remarkably current, as if it were written only yesterday rather than a century ago.
215 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1881
About the author
Leo Tolstoy
7,278 books25.6k followersLev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.
His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
May 22, 2014
This type of book would not normally register as a reading interest for me but a good friend of mine lent me this book and told me to give it a butcher. I’m not much of a fanboy for religion, but then neither is my friend, so I decided to humor him and read the book. This also marks my first piece of writing by Tolstoy that I’ve ever read.
The Gospel in Brief was composed by Tolstoy in the latter years of his life as a means of getting out of a slump of depression brought about by the popular-among-the-educated opinion that life is a meaningless collision of atoms, and that even you and me are nothing more than an evolutionary crapshoot that has made us a persistent chemical fart of a species. Good times. But Tolstoy was too pragmatic of a thinker to buy into any organized representation of religion and also well-understood the malleability of a book like the Bible. Tolstoy decided that the only redeeming quality of Christianity were the Gospels, and even in that instance, only matters concerning the celebration of kindness and love that Jesus teaches. But even the Gospels had been polluted by two thousand years of revisions, reinterpretations, political agendas, and the usual forms of manipulation our lovely species is so fond of. So Tolstoy decided to compose a work that stripped away the dogmatic qualities of the Gospels and compose a narrative based entirely on the words of Jesus. Gone are all the miracles besides the only one that mattered to Tolstoy, and that is the silly little idea that a person could convince people to care about others and be kind to them by doing nothing more than caring about others and being kind to them himself.
This book makes for an interesting read and succeeds in presenting the positive aspects of Jesus’ teachings outside of any of the materialistic or convoluted abstractions that are the bread and butter of all religious control in the world. It’s hard not to sympathize with Jesus when presented with a story of a man who went around being nice to people and telling them to be nice to others, and then is tortured and murdered because love and kindness doesn’t keep the rich and powerful fat and well fed off the the poor and uneducated masses. If you hadn’t as of yet gleamed from my review, then let me clarify that Tolstoy uses his translation and interpretation of the Gospels as a means of criticizing the Orthodox Church of his time. I’m sure anyone with an interest in Marxist readings could have a field day with this book as well, but not me. I’m glad to be through with this read even though it was slim and thought-provoking. This kind of thing of just ain’t my scene. Give me dense, uncompromising, and fictional prose any day, but give me sometimes-vague, positive words of wisdom and I just grow bored. It was hard for me to read more than 20-30 pages at a time. The best part of the book was the lengthy introduction which breaks down Tolstoy’s reasons for this work and also includes some wonderful knife jabs at organized religion and all the miserable fuckers who like to use religion as an excuse for misery-fucking other people.
The Gospel in Brief was composed by Tolstoy in the latter years of his life as a means of getting out of a slump of depression brought about by the popular-among-the-educated opinion that life is a meaningless collision of atoms, and that even you and me are nothing more than an evolutionary crapshoot that has made us a persistent chemical fart of a species. Good times. But Tolstoy was too pragmatic of a thinker to buy into any organized representation of religion and also well-understood the malleability of a book like the Bible. Tolstoy decided that the only redeeming quality of Christianity were the Gospels, and even in that instance, only matters concerning the celebration of kindness and love that Jesus teaches. But even the Gospels had been polluted by two thousand years of revisions, reinterpretations, political agendas, and the usual forms of manipulation our lovely species is so fond of. So Tolstoy decided to compose a work that stripped away the dogmatic qualities of the Gospels and compose a narrative based entirely on the words of Jesus. Gone are all the miracles besides the only one that mattered to Tolstoy, and that is the silly little idea that a person could convince people to care about others and be kind to them by doing nothing more than caring about others and being kind to them himself.
This book makes for an interesting read and succeeds in presenting the positive aspects of Jesus’ teachings outside of any of the materialistic or convoluted abstractions that are the bread and butter of all religious control in the world. It’s hard not to sympathize with Jesus when presented with a story of a man who went around being nice to people and telling them to be nice to others, and then is tortured and murdered because love and kindness doesn’t keep the rich and powerful fat and well fed off the the poor and uneducated masses. If you hadn’t as of yet gleamed from my review, then let me clarify that Tolstoy uses his translation and interpretation of the Gospels as a means of criticizing the Orthodox Church of his time. I’m sure anyone with an interest in Marxist readings could have a field day with this book as well, but not me. I’m glad to be through with this read even though it was slim and thought-provoking. This kind of thing of just ain’t my scene. Give me dense, uncompromising, and fictional prose any day, but give me sometimes-vague, positive words of wisdom and I just grow bored. It was hard for me to read more than 20-30 pages at a time. The best part of the book was the lengthy introduction which breaks down Tolstoy’s reasons for this work and also includes some wonderful knife jabs at organized religion and all the miserable fuckers who like to use religion as an excuse for misery-fucking other people.
January 25, 2018
This is not for the one hour a week religious. The Gospel in Brief strips Christianity of his mystical elements in favour of a grounded and philosophical analysis of Christ's teachings.
July 27, 2017
Orta yaşlarında geçirdiği derin varoluş bunalımının ardından, uzun süren bir arayış ve tefekkür döneminden sonra kaleme alıyor Yeni Ahit'i Lev Nikolayeviç Tolstoy. Böylelikle ortaya çıkıyor İncil'in Kısa Bir Özeti. İsa'nın doğumundan başlayarak, son nefesini verdiği çarmıhın üzerinde geçirdiği dokuzuncu saatin içerisinde yaşadıkları ve son sözleriyle de nihayetlendiriyor kitabını. Birinci Dünya Savaşı esnasında bunalım ve arayış içerisindeki bir başka düşünür Ludwig Wittgenstein ise en büyük romancılardan biri olarak gördüğü hayatın anlamını arayan, aynı zamanda Hıristiyan reformcusu Tolstoy'un incelemesini okuduktan sonra intihar düşüncesinden kurtulduğunu söylüyor. Filozof kanserden ölüyor. Altmış iki yaşında toprağa veriliyor. İsa Peygamber otuz üç yaşında göğe yükseliyor. Tolstoy da manevi boşluk ve bunalımın tesiriyle terk ettiği evinden çok da uzaklaşamadan Astopovo tren istasyonunda zatürreden ölmüş halde bulunuyor. Bu esnada seksen iki yaşında ve bir parça da küskün hayata.
Elinizdeki bir büyük anlatıdan kaynaklı ilahi kitabın bir yorumu olunca da beşer ne diyeceğini, neyi eleştireceğini şaşırıyor işte böyle. Bildiği kelimeleri doğru kullanmakta daha bir titizleniyor. İşin ucunda kurucu mit, seçilmiş ama seçtiklerince ihanete uğramış ve çileli bir süreçten geçerek ölen bir peygamber, ömrünün önemli bir kısmını bu öğretiye adamış Tolstoy ve referans olarak da arka kapakta Wittgenstein olunca olayın boyutları da değişiyor. Yeni Ahit ya da herhangi bir kutsal kitabı okumamış yahut okusa da yorumlayamamış olanlar, ışığı bilmeyenler, yolunu kaybedenler, bir yol arayanlar ya da tüm yolların kapandığını düşünenler açısından bakıldığındaysa kitap tıpkı Wittgenstein'ın değerlendirmesinde olduğu gibi bir cevher, bir hazine. Tolstoy, kiliselerin yanlış yorumlarına yüz vermeden tüm iyi niyetiyle bir din bilgini gibi yorumluyor Çileci Peygamber'in hayatını.
"Hıristiyanlığı ne kapsayıcı ilahi bir vahiy, ne de tarihsel bir olgu olarak görüyorum. Hıristiyanlığı hayatın anlamını veren bir öğreti olarak görüyorum." Tolstoy
"Çarmıhta iken "Tanrım, Tanrım beni neden terk ettin?"" diyen İsa'nın nezdinde tüm insanlığın kendi haline terk edildiğini düşünüyorum erken bir tarihte. Baba oğlunu feda etti. Kıvılcımı ilk çakan oğul ise kefaretini ödedi, mükafatını aldı. Yüzyıllar geçti üzerinden. Okuyoruz ve anlamaya çalışıyoruz hala daha." Bir kimse
"Sahte peygamberlerden, öğretmenlerden sakının; onlar size kuzu postuna bürünerek yanaşırlar ama içten yırtıcı kurtlardırlar(Matta 7:15). Onları meyvelerinden, onlardan doğan şeyden tanıyacaksınız. Dulavratotundan üzüm, titrek kavaktan meyve toplanabilşr mi?(Matta 7:16). İyi ağaç iyi meyve verir, kötü ağaç ise kötü meyve verir. Böylece sahte peygamberleri meyvelerinden tanıyacaksınız(Matta 7:17, 20).
Elinizdeki bir büyük anlatıdan kaynaklı ilahi kitabın bir yorumu olunca da beşer ne diyeceğini, neyi eleştireceğini şaşırıyor işte böyle. Bildiği kelimeleri doğru kullanmakta daha bir titizleniyor. İşin ucunda kurucu mit, seçilmiş ama seçtiklerince ihanete uğramış ve çileli bir süreçten geçerek ölen bir peygamber, ömrünün önemli bir kısmını bu öğretiye adamış Tolstoy ve referans olarak da arka kapakta Wittgenstein olunca olayın boyutları da değişiyor. Yeni Ahit ya da herhangi bir kutsal kitabı okumamış yahut okusa da yorumlayamamış olanlar, ışığı bilmeyenler, yolunu kaybedenler, bir yol arayanlar ya da tüm yolların kapandığını düşünenler açısından bakıldığındaysa kitap tıpkı Wittgenstein'ın değerlendirmesinde olduğu gibi bir cevher, bir hazine. Tolstoy, kiliselerin yanlış yorumlarına yüz vermeden tüm iyi niyetiyle bir din bilgini gibi yorumluyor Çileci Peygamber'in hayatını.
"Hıristiyanlığı ne kapsayıcı ilahi bir vahiy, ne de tarihsel bir olgu olarak görüyorum. Hıristiyanlığı hayatın anlamını veren bir öğreti olarak görüyorum." Tolstoy
"Çarmıhta iken "Tanrım, Tanrım beni neden terk ettin?"" diyen İsa'nın nezdinde tüm insanlığın kendi haline terk edildiğini düşünüyorum erken bir tarihte. Baba oğlunu feda etti. Kıvılcımı ilk çakan oğul ise kefaretini ödedi, mükafatını aldı. Yüzyıllar geçti üzerinden. Okuyoruz ve anlamaya çalışıyoruz hala daha." Bir kimse
"Sahte peygamberlerden, öğretmenlerden sakının; onlar size kuzu postuna bürünerek yanaşırlar ama içten yırtıcı kurtlardırlar(Matta 7:15). Onları meyvelerinden, onlardan doğan şeyden tanıyacaksınız. Dulavratotundan üzüm, titrek kavaktan meyve toplanabilşr mi?(Matta 7:16). İyi ağaç iyi meyve verir, kötü ağaç ise kötü meyve verir. Böylece sahte peygamberleri meyvelerinden tanıyacaksınız(Matta 7:17, 20).
June 20, 2022
Tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog was Ludwig Wittgenstein vol lof over het kleine evangelie (1881-1883) van Tolstoj, hij zei zelfs dat "het hem in leven heeft gehouden" tijdens de zwaarste maanden van de oorlog. Hij las dit naast het hoofdwerk van Schopenhauer en terwijl hij de fundamenten doordacht van zijn Tractatus. Deze opvallende woorden brachten me naar dit korte maar rijke boek.
Tolstoj heeft de 4 evangelieën gesynthetiseerd en herschreven in een prachtig proza met filosofische fijngevoeligheid. Ook Tolstoj was erg onder de indruk door Schopenhauers atheïstische spiritualiteit en hoe deze voor ascese pleitte. Mede hierdoor geïnspireerd heeft hij zijn eigen opvattingen gesystematiseerd aan de hand van de verhalen van de evangelieschrijvers.
De leerstellingen van het christelijke wereldbeeld, zoals het leven naar de geest in de plaats van het lichaam, en het statuut van de "wil van de vader" - in de zin van het volgen van hogere idealen - worden haarscherp uiteengezet. Jezus is niet een mysterieuze profeet maar gaat uit van alledaagse wijsheden die voor iedereen bruikbaar zijn. Jezus is een moralist en niet een heilige die wonderen verricht, bij Tolstoj moet dit allegorisch gelezen worden. Vanuit een visie van rationalisme verwerpt Tolstoj al het wonderlijke en buitengewone uit de evangelieën, in voordele van de concrete morele regels die worden uiteengezet door Jezus. In wezen heeft deze lezing veel meer weg van een ander perspectief aannemen dan een bovenmenselijke wet te volgen. In Tolstojs eigen woorden is het resultaat niets minder dan "Christus zonder het Christendom".
Het opzet van het boek is creatief in alle eenvoud. Het Onze Vader wordt geanalyseerd in 12 verzen, die op hun beurt in 12 hoofdstukken worden uitgewerkt om de symboliek te verhelderen. Tolstoj verklaart in de introductie tot zijn verbazing hoe dit gebed de kern van de hele leer van Christus bevat. In elk hoofdstuk wordt vervolgens aan de hand van verhalen en stelregels de praktische betekenis voorgesteld, als het ware zoals een handboek.
Tolstoj toont in zijn lezing van Christus' woorden zijn eigen sociaal-religieuze opvattingen. Christus wordt voorgesteld als een individualist en non-conformist. In plaats van de wetten van de oude orthodoxe schriftgeleerden te volgen opteert Christus om naar het innerlijke geweten te luisteren, empathie na te streven en sociale verandering teweeg te brengen. Jezus is anti-autoritair in deze lezing en verwerpt de geïnstitutionaliseerde Joodse leerstellingen die blindelings werden gevolgd in die tijd.
De kritiek in dit boek van Jezus op de leer van Mozes in het Oude Testament is parallel met Tolstojs eigen kritiek op de Russische Orthodoxe Kerk, die ook vastgeroest waren in rituelen en dogma. Deze ideeën zijn ook onder meer uiteengezet in de autobiografische tekst "mijn biecht" uit 1881. Door deze tekst, en de andere kritische teksten die Tolstoj schreef zal hij uiteindelijk geëxcommuniceerd worden door de Orthodoxen in 1901.
De hier voorgestelde lezing van Jezus' leer is geactualiseerd, het typische universalisme van Jezus leer wordt verteld op gemoderniseerde wijze. Het gaat om kritiek durven geven op in steen gebeitelde idealen en de moed hebben om een authentieke eigen stem te volgen. Het doet denken aan Thomas a Kempis opzet van "De imitatione Christi" maar dan toegepast op de 19de en 20ste eeuwse realiteit. Niet voor niets is dit werk een aanzet geweest voor revolutionair denken en Christelijk anarchisme.
Het was een plezier te genieten van Tolstojs fijgevoelige radicaliteit in dit korte, persoonlijke evangelie.
Tolstoj heeft de 4 evangelieën gesynthetiseerd en herschreven in een prachtig proza met filosofische fijngevoeligheid. Ook Tolstoj was erg onder de indruk door Schopenhauers atheïstische spiritualiteit en hoe deze voor ascese pleitte. Mede hierdoor geïnspireerd heeft hij zijn eigen opvattingen gesystematiseerd aan de hand van de verhalen van de evangelieschrijvers.
De leerstellingen van het christelijke wereldbeeld, zoals het leven naar de geest in de plaats van het lichaam, en het statuut van de "wil van de vader" - in de zin van het volgen van hogere idealen - worden haarscherp uiteengezet. Jezus is niet een mysterieuze profeet maar gaat uit van alledaagse wijsheden die voor iedereen bruikbaar zijn. Jezus is een moralist en niet een heilige die wonderen verricht, bij Tolstoj moet dit allegorisch gelezen worden. Vanuit een visie van rationalisme verwerpt Tolstoj al het wonderlijke en buitengewone uit de evangelieën, in voordele van de concrete morele regels die worden uiteengezet door Jezus. In wezen heeft deze lezing veel meer weg van een ander perspectief aannemen dan een bovenmenselijke wet te volgen. In Tolstojs eigen woorden is het resultaat niets minder dan "Christus zonder het Christendom".
Het opzet van het boek is creatief in alle eenvoud. Het Onze Vader wordt geanalyseerd in 12 verzen, die op hun beurt in 12 hoofdstukken worden uitgewerkt om de symboliek te verhelderen. Tolstoj verklaart in de introductie tot zijn verbazing hoe dit gebed de kern van de hele leer van Christus bevat. In elk hoofdstuk wordt vervolgens aan de hand van verhalen en stelregels de praktische betekenis voorgesteld, als het ware zoals een handboek.
Tolstoj toont in zijn lezing van Christus' woorden zijn eigen sociaal-religieuze opvattingen. Christus wordt voorgesteld als een individualist en non-conformist. In plaats van de wetten van de oude orthodoxe schriftgeleerden te volgen opteert Christus om naar het innerlijke geweten te luisteren, empathie na te streven en sociale verandering teweeg te brengen. Jezus is anti-autoritair in deze lezing en verwerpt de geïnstitutionaliseerde Joodse leerstellingen die blindelings werden gevolgd in die tijd.
De kritiek in dit boek van Jezus op de leer van Mozes in het Oude Testament is parallel met Tolstojs eigen kritiek op de Russische Orthodoxe Kerk, die ook vastgeroest waren in rituelen en dogma. Deze ideeën zijn ook onder meer uiteengezet in de autobiografische tekst "mijn biecht" uit 1881. Door deze tekst, en de andere kritische teksten die Tolstoj schreef zal hij uiteindelijk geëxcommuniceerd worden door de Orthodoxen in 1901.
De hier voorgestelde lezing van Jezus' leer is geactualiseerd, het typische universalisme van Jezus leer wordt verteld op gemoderniseerde wijze. Het gaat om kritiek durven geven op in steen gebeitelde idealen en de moed hebben om een authentieke eigen stem te volgen. Het doet denken aan Thomas a Kempis opzet van "De imitatione Christi" maar dan toegepast op de 19de en 20ste eeuwse realiteit. Niet voor niets is dit werk een aanzet geweest voor revolutionair denken en Christelijk anarchisme.
Het was een plezier te genieten van Tolstojs fijgevoelige radicaliteit in dit korte, persoonlijke evangelie.
February 16, 2022
This book attracted my attention while reading about the philosopher Wittgenstein, who loved it so much he carried it around while fighting in WW1. And although the man had a tendency to change his mind, he didn’t do so with regard to his love for this book.
I liked it very much as well. I grew up as a Catholic and Catholics don’t read Bibles as much as Protestants do. But I did read some Bible stories as a kid.
Recently, I made the effort to read the Bible in it’s entirety - and the Qur’an as well, for that matter - to get over with all the second, third and fourth hand information about these religions and their books and and go straight to the source. For me, this was a somewhat underwhelming experience.
I know that reading the Bible is an art and that there are people - Jordan Peterson comes to mind - who are able to distill many wise lessons out of it. So let’s say I’m ignorant enough to not have (yet) been able to do so. I couldn’t get much out of all the anger and fury in the Old Testament and the wonders in the New Testament. What I did find enlightening was the fact that the Qur’an was so incredibly similar to the Bible, but I’m digressing.
Coming from here, how refreshing it was to read Tolstoy’s Gospel in Brief. As the title suggests this is only about the New Testament. Then Tolstoy got rid of all the magic tricks and wonders and concentrated on what Jesus actually had to say. As if you first read the ‘children’s version’ (no offense) of some famous book and then the original. I felt taken seriously as a reader, to be offered some very wise lessons, without being ‘manipulated’ into believing by giving me all sorts of magic. What then remains is some very good news indeed.
I listened to the audiobook, pleasantly narrated by Greg Rizzo. With 3:41 hours, the title lived up to its promise.
I liked it very much as well. I grew up as a Catholic and Catholics don’t read Bibles as much as Protestants do. But I did read some Bible stories as a kid.
Recently, I made the effort to read the Bible in it’s entirety - and the Qur’an as well, for that matter - to get over with all the second, third and fourth hand information about these religions and their books and and go straight to the source. For me, this was a somewhat underwhelming experience.
I know that reading the Bible is an art and that there are people - Jordan Peterson comes to mind - who are able to distill many wise lessons out of it. So let’s say I’m ignorant enough to not have (yet) been able to do so. I couldn’t get much out of all the anger and fury in the Old Testament and the wonders in the New Testament. What I did find enlightening was the fact that the Qur’an was so incredibly similar to the Bible, but I’m digressing.
Coming from here, how refreshing it was to read Tolstoy’s Gospel in Brief. As the title suggests this is only about the New Testament. Then Tolstoy got rid of all the magic tricks and wonders and concentrated on what Jesus actually had to say. As if you first read the ‘children’s version’ (no offense) of some famous book and then the original. I felt taken seriously as a reader, to be offered some very wise lessons, without being ‘manipulated’ into believing by giving me all sorts of magic. What then remains is some very good news indeed.
I listened to the audiobook, pleasantly narrated by Greg Rizzo. With 3:41 hours, the title lived up to its promise.
January 18, 2018
Leo Tolstoy
(1828–1910) is, of course, best known as the author
of War and Peace and Anna Karenina – works on a par with the
writings of Homer and Dante, Shakespeare and Dickens.
Few doubt his greatness as an author,
which extends to a long list of books in various genres:
novels, stories, plays, letters and essays.
By the age of fifty,
Tolstoy stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries,
and he was widely regarded as the leading writer in Russia.
His novels and stories, with their intuitive grasp of the Russian
social context, their fierce poetic energy, and their narrative compulsion,
stunned the world. Like Dickens, he had a visionary sense
of history. He was also imbued with a fine moral sensibility. Perhaps
only George Eliot possessed a similarly refined and pervasively
interesting conscience.
But Tolstoy was not content
to rest on his laurels. In truth, he was far from happy.
During a midlife crisis of epic proportions, Tolstoy turned to
religion. Already in the 1870s, as he was writing Anna Karenina, he
had begun to read the Gospels seriously, to attend church, to pray
and fast. But this religious practice proved insufficient to his needs,
and he began to dig deeper, questioning the basic tenets of Christianity,
rethinking everything. He poured out his heart in his brilliant
Confession (1882), raking over his own past, trying to come to terms
with his own mortality. He had been, as he says, on the brink of
suicide. Life seemed meaningless, absurd. As it were, this vivid
work of self-revelation sits comfortably on the library shelf beside
the great spiritual memoirs of St.Augustine or Rousseau.
At the same time, Tolstoy began to study New Testament Greek,
writing various essays and short books about religion. He was
searching frantically for purpose in his life, and he found this purview
pose in the teachings of Jesus. But he was not interested in the
dogmatic theology put forward by the Russian Orthodox Church,
which he quite properly viewed as an extension of the Tsarist government.
He rejected this conventional interpretation of Christianity,
believing that the church had, in fact, corrupted the message of
Christ, distorting its true meanings, blunting its power to change
lives and transform society.
Tolstoy was an aristocrat,
of course, born into a noble family on his
father’s side, one that could trace its lineage back a long way, well
before the time of Peter the Great, who had appointed one of his
ancestors as an ambassador to Constantinople. On his maternal
side, too, he had lofty antecedents, including his widely admired
grandfather, Prince Nicholas Sergeyevich Volkonsky – an important
military officer and public servant.
Not unlike a fair few aristocrats
of his day, he sowed many wild oats, frequenting brothels,
gambling, drinking. He had gone to war, and seen the horrors of
battle at close hand (as described in his Sevastopol Sketches of
1855). He felt extremely guilty about the path his life had taken and
the choices he had made, and this guilt fueled his religious conversion.
He wanted to purify himself, so he turned to vegetarianism
and advocated other forms of asceticism to his many followers, who
called themselves ‘Tolstoyans.’ He had help here from Vladimir
Chertkov, whom he met in 1883 in Moscow. Chertkov helped to
organize Tolstoy’s followers into utopian communities, wherein
property was pooled, alcohol and tobacco were forbidden, and
chastity was extolled. During this decade, Tolstoy began to think
and write about pacifism, and his ideas about not resisting evil
attracted a range of disciples, including Gandhi,who wrote letters to
him from South Africa.
All the while, he continued his intense studies of the scriptures,
focusing on the Gospels. Always a radical thinker, one who turned
instinctively to first principles, he rejected what he considered the
superfluous aspects of the Christian message. Like Thomas Jefferson
before him, he found the supernatural side of Jesus Christ less
appealing than his practical teachings. It was in these teachings, as
in the Sermon on the Mount or the Lord’s Prayer, that he found
meaning.
He set a task for himself in the early eighties: to ‘harmonize’ the
Gospels. That is, he wanted to find the essential story of Jesus and
his message. This work involved stripping away most of the details
of Christ’s background, birth and upbringing, getting rid of the
miracles, and discarding the resurrection. These were, in Tolstoy’s
unusual view, distractions that kept devout men and women from
confronting the core teachings of Christ.
As it were,
Tolstoy’s Jesus
is more ‘the son of man’ than ‘the son of God.’
The power of the message itself becomes sacred, life-transforming, and beyond contradiction.
Tolstoy was certainly fearless in the way he approached the scriptures.
Unlike most Christians before and after him, he refused to
treat every word and syllable as the Word of God, divinely given. As
he put it, ‘the reader must not forget that it is a gross error to
represent the four Gospels, as is often done, to be books sacred in
every verse and every syllable.’
He reminds us that Jesus himself,
unlike Plato or Philo or Marcus Aurelius, never actually wrote a
book. Nor did he, like Socrates, transmit his message to literate
men. His audience consisted of peasants who, for the most part,
were uneducated. His core teachings would take centuries to sift
and settle in the form of the four canonical Gospels.
Moreover, as Tolstoy notes, these Gospels were hardly the writings
of disciples called Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John. Rather, they
comprised ‘the work of thousands of various brains and hands.’
Over centuries, these books were ‘selected, enlarged, and commented
on.’
Tolstoy writes: ‘The reader must have all this present in
mind in order to disengage himself from the opinion, so common
among us, that the Gospels, in their present state, have come to us
directly from the Holy Spirit.’ (One can see from this that Tolstoy
was fully acquainted with the scholarship of the German Higher
Criticism, which had cast a fresh and radical light on the origins and
development of the Gospels.)
One should note that Tolstoy was not simply a Deist who worshiped
a distant God, a Supreme Being who set the universe in
motion and then walked away from his creation. In this Enlightenment
vision of theology, Jesus became a good man, a model for
human behavior. Tolstoy did find a divine element in Jesus; but
that divinity inheres in the message itself, which is eternal – a message
that Tolstoy - who also studied Eastern religions and Islam –
elevated above other teachings. I find an incipient mysticism in
Tolstoy’s thinking; for him, Christianity is ‘the only doctrine which
gives a meaning to life’.
It is the mystery of Christ, the ‘light’ that emanates from Him,
from his message, that rivets Tolstoy’s attention, and he burrows
into the Gospels here in an attempt to bring together the main
teachings in a distilled form. This work could not, of course, be
published in Tolstoy’s day – although the manuscript of the larger
work did circulate in Russia and abroad. The Gospel in Brief represents
only one portion of this much larger work – its essence. That
is, it contains the stripped down ‘good news’ of Jesus, with Tolstoy’s
additions and subtractions.
For Tolstoy the crucial phrase in the Gospels was from Luke 17,
here quoted in the King James Version: ‘And when he was
demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should
come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh
not with observation: Neither shall they say,Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you.’ Tolstoy so loved this
last phrase that he used it for the title of a book, and his theology
locates the godhead in the midst of the people, in the earth itself, in
human actions – Tolstoy puts his emphasis on the latter. Over and
again, he stresses forgiveness, love, humility, and a concern for the
downtrodden, the lowest rungs of society, people most in need.
Tolstoy took it upon himself to ‘harmonize’ the Gospels by
putting the teachings of Christ into twelve chapters, each of them
focused on some particular theme, such as the idea of Jesus as the
son of God or the notion of God’s kingdom. Needless to say, this
‘harmonization’ does some injustice to the Gospels which, especially
in the first three or ‘synoptic’ gospels, have a marvelous narrative
sense of unfolding meaning.
The ‘back’ story of the Gospels – about the flight of Mary and
Joseph from authority, or the way John the Baptist anticipates the
meaning of Christ, or the miracles – are deeply rooted in the message
of the New Testament as a whole, and one has to wonder a bit at
Tolstoy’s audacity. Something is unquestionably lost in his translation
and re-organization. But something is gained, too, as Ludwig
Wittgenstein observed in a letter to a friend: ‘Are you acquainted
with Tolstoy’s Gospel in Brief? At its time, this book virtually kept
me alive . . . . . If you are not acquainted with it, then you cannot
imagine what an effect it can have upon a person.’
I have myself found this assembly of sayings remarkably affecting,
even ‘useful,’ as text for meditation and thought – a kind of fifth
Gospel. The character of Jesus emerges fully here, as it always has –
although to some degree Tolstoy dulls the effect of the parables by
explaining them away in the little additions he often makes. Readers
familiar with the original Gospels will notice his many changes,
interpolations, and additions.
In his introduction, Tolstoy puts the question of Jesus and his
impact on generations of followers with his usual frankness:
‘Eighteen
hundred years ago a poor wanderer appeared on earth who
taught certain things. He was flogged and executed. And since
then, though many just men have suffered for the belief, millions of
people, wise and foolish, learned and ignorant, cannot shake off the
conviction that this man, alone among men, was God.’
This book contains, according to Leo Tolstoy,
‘the true teachings’
of Jesus, ‘clearly seen,’ and without the excessive baggage (in his
view) in which these teachings were swaddled. The effect of reading
these through is bracing, and a portrait emerges of a doctrine that is
beautiful in its lineaments and far-reaching in its power to change
the lives of men and women.
Tolstoy wanted nothing less than a
total transformation of human society, and he saw this distillation of
the Gospels as one way to bring about God’s kingdom on earth.
April 8, 2024
Nachdem ich "Meine Beichte" gelesen habe, hab ich rausgefunden, dass es nur die Einleitung zu einem vierteiligen Gesamtwerk ist. Ich hab also direkt danach "Kritik der dogmatischen Religion" (manchmal auch "Theologie") angefangen. Es stellte sich aber heraus, dass er dort sehr lang gezogen nur auf ganz bestimmte theologische Bücher seiner Zeit reagiert und sie polemisch kommentiert. Ich hab leider kein Plan von orthodoxer Theologie und hab es deshalb übersprungen. In dem Buch hier macht er aber etwas sehr Ähnliches: Er übersetzt die zentralen Perikopen der Evangelien neu, und kommentiert in einem zweiten Teil die Texte insofern, als dass er sie in seinen eigenen Worten wiedergibt.
Das hat mich nicht nur formal an Chris Hawes und Shane Claibornes "Jesus for President" erinnert. Dort machen sie dasselbe wie Tolstoy, bloß mit der Bibel als Ganzes. Zwei weitere Übereinstimmungen mit den Red Letter Christians sind:
- Starker Bezug auf Jesu Worte in bewusster Unterminierung von sowohl dem Rest der Bibel als auch kritischer Wissenschaften
- Politische Auslegung mit einer radikalen Sozialethik
Es war unmöglich den Text nicht als Antithese zur "Kritik der dogmatischen Religion" zu lesen. Dort zeigte er, was man nicht glauben solle. Hier aber zeigt er den Kern, die universell erkennbare Essenz des Christentums auf, die von den Dogmatikern versteckt wird. Im vierten Teil des Gesamtwerks, "Mein Glaube", haben wir dann die Synthese. Da mich der Teil hier noch nicht ganz so abgeholt hat, sowohl durch die Darstellungsform als auch inhaltlich, bin ich gespannt, wie's weitergeht.
Das hat mich nicht nur formal an Chris Hawes und Shane Claibornes "Jesus for President" erinnert. Dort machen sie dasselbe wie Tolstoy, bloß mit der Bibel als Ganzes. Zwei weitere Übereinstimmungen mit den Red Letter Christians sind:
- Starker Bezug auf Jesu Worte in bewusster Unterminierung von sowohl dem Rest der Bibel als auch kritischer Wissenschaften
- Politische Auslegung mit einer radikalen Sozialethik
Es war unmöglich den Text nicht als Antithese zur "Kritik der dogmatischen Religion" zu lesen. Dort zeigte er, was man nicht glauben solle. Hier aber zeigt er den Kern, die universell erkennbare Essenz des Christentums auf, die von den Dogmatikern versteckt wird. Im vierten Teil des Gesamtwerks, "Mein Glaube", haben wir dann die Synthese. Da mich der Teil hier noch nicht ganz so abgeholt hat, sowohl durch die Darstellungsform als auch inhaltlich, bin ich gespannt, wie's weitergeht.
February 22, 2024
Tolstoy retells the gospel, elevating what he finds theologically primary, and brushing over what he finds secondary. (An activity we all unawarely participate in, but Tolstoy does purposefully). I enjoyed looking for what Tolstoy saw as the center of the gospel. For Tolstoy, the logical response to the apocalypse of God is a faithful, worshiping, spirit filled, nonviolent anarchists community. Or as David Hart summarizes it “praying Anarcho-Communists”. May it be so.
February 17, 2018
Tolstoy's The Gospel in Brief is very disappointing for a number of reasons. I picked the book up with the expectations that come with opening any text by one of the literary greats of the last 100 years. Here, surely, would be a clever or, at the least, pleasingly written collation of the gospels that distilled down to the main beauty, value and truth of them. I was very wrong.
For starters, the book is just bad. Poorly written, from a purely literary standpoint. It is incredibly dull. I found myself reading sentences that I was sure I'd read multiple times before, such is the sense of repetition and forced expounding that occurs. Sure, I read an English translation of the Russian original, but I find it hard to believe that the translator would be wholly to blame for what are whole paragraphs of needless clarification or emphasis.
But poor writing aside, the first of two egregious errors is Tolstoy's determination to shred the importance of the Gospel down to just the practical teaching of Jesus. That by reading the Gospel we receive a profound knowledge of life, death, and our relationship to God, is very true. To understand only this, however, is to ignore and miss the fact that we are saved by grace, through faith. That we are saved by a God who made himself man and gave himself up for us on the cross, died, and rose again. That Jesus acts as an intercessor on our account. Tolstoy largely ignores all of this. He strips out any miracles and focuses solely on the words Jesus spoke. Such is surely the folly of an intellectual.
But the most disconcerting aspect of Tolstoy's 'project', is the blatant misappropriation of the Gospel to meet the needs of the previous error. He writes in the preface that he is endeavouring to collate the four Gospels into a coherent, consistent story. He even admits that he will focus on the teaching of Jesus, and will omit certain aspects. Props to him for being clear on that, at least. But what he fails to at all make clear is that he will be embellishing, expanding and morphing verses without clearly delineating where the biblical source ends and his own interpretation begins. The book includes in the margin the book, chapter, and verse of the bible from which Tolstoy's 'appropriation' has come and so, when reading any section, the reader would assume that the content is an interpretation/translation of the original, perhaps forgiving some minor clarifying comments. Instead, there are whole sections where the expansions goes far beyond what could even have been presumed by context. Sections in which, where a verse might be one sentence long, Tolstoy writes three paragraphs.
Other authors of have attempted the task of collating the Gospels into a singular narrative. In most cases, though, they make it clear what content is of the original, and what is of their own creating. Tolstoy, will inject whole sections of narrative and dialogue into scenes which we have read since we were young, as if they had always been there. He writes, "And then Jesus said,..." - to which I as the reader could only remark, "No. No he definitely didn't." And that is what is ultimately terrible about the book - it's excruciatingly annoying and disagreeable. All I wanted to do, upon reaching the end of the book, was to go and pick up the real Gospel and inhale, like fresh air, some words of truth.
For starters, the book is just bad. Poorly written, from a purely literary standpoint. It is incredibly dull. I found myself reading sentences that I was sure I'd read multiple times before, such is the sense of repetition and forced expounding that occurs. Sure, I read an English translation of the Russian original, but I find it hard to believe that the translator would be wholly to blame for what are whole paragraphs of needless clarification or emphasis.
But poor writing aside, the first of two egregious errors is Tolstoy's determination to shred the importance of the Gospel down to just the practical teaching of Jesus. That by reading the Gospel we receive a profound knowledge of life, death, and our relationship to God, is very true. To understand only this, however, is to ignore and miss the fact that we are saved by grace, through faith. That we are saved by a God who made himself man and gave himself up for us on the cross, died, and rose again. That Jesus acts as an intercessor on our account. Tolstoy largely ignores all of this. He strips out any miracles and focuses solely on the words Jesus spoke. Such is surely the folly of an intellectual.
But the most disconcerting aspect of Tolstoy's 'project', is the blatant misappropriation of the Gospel to meet the needs of the previous error. He writes in the preface that he is endeavouring to collate the four Gospels into a coherent, consistent story. He even admits that he will focus on the teaching of Jesus, and will omit certain aspects. Props to him for being clear on that, at least. But what he fails to at all make clear is that he will be embellishing, expanding and morphing verses without clearly delineating where the biblical source ends and his own interpretation begins. The book includes in the margin the book, chapter, and verse of the bible from which Tolstoy's 'appropriation' has come and so, when reading any section, the reader would assume that the content is an interpretation/translation of the original, perhaps forgiving some minor clarifying comments. Instead, there are whole sections where the expansions goes far beyond what could even have been presumed by context. Sections in which, where a verse might be one sentence long, Tolstoy writes three paragraphs.
Other authors of have attempted the task of collating the Gospels into a singular narrative. In most cases, though, they make it clear what content is of the original, and what is of their own creating. Tolstoy, will inject whole sections of narrative and dialogue into scenes which we have read since we were young, as if they had always been there. He writes, "And then Jesus said,..." - to which I as the reader could only remark, "No. No he definitely didn't." And that is what is ultimately terrible about the book - it's excruciatingly annoying and disagreeable. All I wanted to do, upon reaching the end of the book, was to go and pick up the real Gospel and inhale, like fresh air, some words of truth.
October 5, 2016
One might imagine that if you combined one of the greatest writers in human history with the most influential piece of literature in human history that the end result would be a book of such herculean perfection that its reader would have to carry around a towel to mop up all the blood that would be pumping freely from said readers eyes. Sadly, not only is that not the case with Tolstoy's Gospel, but the book suffers from an even greater flaw: it's horrendously irritating while, at the same time, ridiculously boring.
Tolstoy had found an incredibly personal form of Christianity near the end of his life when, due to his horror at the relentless self-righteousness and conformity of the Church, he re-interpreted the religion himself, proceeding to live out the rest of his days vehemently criticizing everyone who didn't conform with his incredibly self-righteous interpretation: it's a cheap irony, and a sad, very real, end for one of the literary giants. One of his efforts to educate the populace was this. Removing all the mysticism and miracles from the four gospels, Tolstoy wrote up a short version of Jesus' life, choosing to focus solely on the words of the man himself. What he ended up with reads just like it sounds: a dull exercise in creative writing that only sees continued publication due to it's connection to literary celebrity. None of what makes Tolstoy important is here, if anything, Leo threw out his own style and intelligence along with Christ walking across the water. Beyond the books unrelenting dullness, the constant egomania and inherent criticism of it's writer shine through in every line--Tolstoy so clearly loathes anyone who doesn't agree with him that it's uncomfortable to read about a man like Jesus, who, historically, pretty much loved everybody.
Although the books brevity (and an overly large font) keep The Gospel In Brief from taking up much of even the slowest readers time, it ends up still taking too much. Unless you're writing a paper on Tolstoy, there's no reason to spend a moment in these pages. As an alternative, try sticking your face into the toilet--you're more likely to reach the Lord far quicker.
Tolstoy had found an incredibly personal form of Christianity near the end of his life when, due to his horror at the relentless self-righteousness and conformity of the Church, he re-interpreted the religion himself, proceeding to live out the rest of his days vehemently criticizing everyone who didn't conform with his incredibly self-righteous interpretation: it's a cheap irony, and a sad, very real, end for one of the literary giants. One of his efforts to educate the populace was this. Removing all the mysticism and miracles from the four gospels, Tolstoy wrote up a short version of Jesus' life, choosing to focus solely on the words of the man himself. What he ended up with reads just like it sounds: a dull exercise in creative writing that only sees continued publication due to it's connection to literary celebrity. None of what makes Tolstoy important is here, if anything, Leo threw out his own style and intelligence along with Christ walking across the water. Beyond the books unrelenting dullness, the constant egomania and inherent criticism of it's writer shine through in every line--Tolstoy so clearly loathes anyone who doesn't agree with him that it's uncomfortable to read about a man like Jesus, who, historically, pretty much loved everybody.
Although the books brevity (and an overly large font) keep The Gospel In Brief from taking up much of even the slowest readers time, it ends up still taking too much. Unless you're writing a paper on Tolstoy, there's no reason to spend a moment in these pages. As an alternative, try sticking your face into the toilet--you're more likely to reach the Lord far quicker.
August 17, 2009
Tolstoy's re-imaging and rearranging of the gospel text is a masterful work, and one that is not to be missed. I grow more and more impressed with Tolstoy and his "gospel" the more I read of it. And, excepting fiction, I have read all he has to say on the matter. I think it is brave of him to cast the resurrection and the other miracles out categorically, and to insist that they actually distract from Jesus teaching. I find myself being rather convinced by his argument. Weather or not the miracles did happen as the original gospels claim, or it happened as Tolstoy envisions it, makes really no difference - for his interpretation of the Gospel remains true - plain and clear and without room for error - one is left to wonder how it got so bastardized so quickly.
I don't agree with Tolstoy on everything, however, and I definitely see some of his psychology coming into play here. Particularly in regards to his theories on sexuality. He had a sexually frustrated and guilt laden adult life, and so he was unable to see sexual relationship for what it is - - therefore he casts it in a particularly negative light.
All in all though, it is a totally necessary re-interpretation of the gospels, and one that sheds beautiful and necessary light on the teaching of the Man Jesus and his Messianic role.
I don't agree with Tolstoy on everything, however, and I definitely see some of his psychology coming into play here. Particularly in regards to his theories on sexuality. He had a sexually frustrated and guilt laden adult life, and so he was unable to see sexual relationship for what it is - - therefore he casts it in a particularly negative light.
All in all though, it is a totally necessary re-interpretation of the gospels, and one that sheds beautiful and necessary light on the teaching of the Man Jesus and his Messianic role.
September 14, 2009
This was a great read for me from a different perspective on the gospels of the New Testament. Translated from the oldest Greek originals in existence and condensing the four gospels into one, Tolstoy attempts to focus only on Jesus' teachings as opposed to his miracles. He emphasizes what he believes the central aspects of the teachings of Jesus really are: To love God and Man as yourself is to recognize that all life comes from the same source. That time is illusory and we only live in the present. That God is that which gives life and is therefore present in all living things. Once someone realizes and embraces these ideas they are set free from the confines of their limited perceptions of reality.
I have to admit this aligns almost exactly with my own life philosophy. Organized religions seem to always lose focus on these aspects, i.e. love, even though they are fairly universal in importance to most major world religions.
I have to admit this aligns almost exactly with my own life philosophy. Organized religions seem to always lose focus on these aspects, i.e. love, even though they are fairly universal in importance to most major world religions.
July 24, 2013
*sigh - a long, deep, audible breath expressing relief.
August 8, 2023
Heel simpel, heel mooi en doodeng
June 18, 2021
I had read so much about this book prior to having it in my hands (and subsequently devouring it in a day) that I had some idea of how it would impact me. I consider myself a casual enjoyer of Tolstoy; I've read The Death of Ivan Ilych, Anna Karenina, and am making my way through War and Peace. That is all to say that I present my review, not as an expert on the man himself, but as a reader with piqued curiosity about Tolstoy's religious views, revealed by the notably distinct moralistic hues of his three most famous works.
It is clear, from his preface, that this work is bound to be one of the most misunderstood of Tolstoy's. In fact, Tolstoy provides a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive reactions to the text depending on the sympathies of the reader. After following the winding protases to the end of the preface, it's clear that the author himself is anxious about how his work will be received (but regardless writes his truth, a genuine feat in censored Russia).
---
Before providing a positive account of the strengths of The Gospel in Brief, I want to address the most common criticisms I hear. (As far as I can tell, these criticisms have persisted since the 1800s.)
1. "The Gospel in Brief doesn't serve as a faithful summary of the canonical gospel." Tolstoy himself (in the preface) responds to this challenge by asking us to consider what the canonical gospel really is. Jesus did not dedicate his wisdom to teaching us how to conduct philology, translation, theology, or history. Jesus taught us how to live. That is what Tolstoy is interested in, and I think that you're interested in it, too. If you want a faithful summary of the canonical gospel, either trust a certain translator or learn Aramaic/Koine and do it yourself. If you want insight into how to live a meaningful life, read Tolstoy.
2. "The Gospel in Brief strips Jesus of divine status." This claim itself is contentious (because, by Tolstoy's account, what accounts for Jesus's perceived divinity is his exceptional, hitherto and thereafter unparalleled, recognition of goodness/spirit within him). But even if this criticism is true, we need to make ourselves aware of why Jesus's divine status, as the product of immaculate conception, matters so much to us. Stepping back from orthodoxy (which Tolstoy encourages us to do), we can see how strange this obsession is. Why should the ability to live meaningfully be tied to accepting an extremely contentious historico-metaphysical claim? For Tolstoy (and Tolstoy's Jesus), it's not the ability to believe against evidence that makes your life meaningful: it's your ability to love. I will avoid a lengthy diatribe on denominations, Protestantism, etc., but finish with this: You must be willing to shake from yourself the grasp of orthodoxy, if only temporarily, to appreciate Tolstoy's view. If you can stomach that, you might even find that his view of the gospel is considerably more coherent than any you have ever known. If you don't, delight in having stood in another pair of shoes for an hour and (I mean this genuinely) enjoy your return to the comfort of your chosen orthodox edifice.
3. "The Gospel in Brief is mechanically and organizationally wanting." Yes, it is. Sections repeat, some of the text is unclear, and there are genuine problems (I'll say more about these soon). But... so what? It's difficult, purely in terms of the appreciation of beautiful writing, to go from reading Tolstoy's peak fiction to The Gospel in Brief. But if that makes-or-breaks the book for you (instead of, rather, impelling you to remove a star from a public Goodreads review), then maybe it's worth re-reading, asking for some help with interpretation, etc. Even if it reads with difficulty on a first pass, I believe that all readers can grasp the idea that there's something really special in these pages, and it's worth the effort to tease it out.
---
The Gospel in Brief is almost certainly incorrect about a number of things, but it is the most convincing account of the gospel I have ever encountered. Some concepts are stretched, and others are circular (Tolstoy's Jesus [I paraphrase here]: "You should abandon your mortal life and follow the teaching from my father." Interlocutor: "Understood. So what is your father's teaching?" TJ: "My father's teaching is to abandon your mortal life and follow the teaching from my father"). Still, the underlying message is clear:
Tolstoy's insistence on glossing over the mysticism is the most important detail of The Gospel in Brief. Perhaps it is all true, that there's some big castle in the sky with God in a chair, who impregnated Mary with someone 100% man and 100% God. And maybe that someone was Jesus, and maybe that Jesus was resurrected. Of course, the previous two sentences are rife with blasphemy, and Tolstoy recognizes that. But he regardless abandons orthodoxy in favor of highlighting the most intuitive religious claim I can imagine: Living a good life does not hinge on accepting metaphysical claims—it hinges on love. And if the truth (about whether God is real and Jesus is his literal son) is the only thing that matters to you, recognize that truth is not what leads to a good life. Rather, it is living a good life that incidentally leads to all truth. Our orthodox traditions have led us away from this fresh perspective, and our habit of analysis leads us to spend time agonizing about what "a good life" really means rather than simply living it. But Tolstoy's Jesus assures us that we are capable of this goodness, though we may not understand the nature of its source. All man knows, when he recognizes the teaching, is that "he was blind, but now he sees. Exactly this and nothing more can be said..."
This review would continue forever if all I did was rehash what Tolstoy has written. But, I hope that I have demonstrated sufficiently that, if ever there was a reason to apply an open mind, The Gospel in Brief is it. If you let him, Tolstoy will show you something—not something new, but something you will recognize as having known all along. And if you believe him, you'll see that Jesus gave us the same invitation. That, to me, is the power of the gospel.
It is clear, from his preface, that this work is bound to be one of the most misunderstood of Tolstoy's. In fact, Tolstoy provides a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive reactions to the text depending on the sympathies of the reader. After following the winding protases to the end of the preface, it's clear that the author himself is anxious about how his work will be received (but regardless writes his truth, a genuine feat in censored Russia).
---
Before providing a positive account of the strengths of The Gospel in Brief, I want to address the most common criticisms I hear. (As far as I can tell, these criticisms have persisted since the 1800s.)
1. "The Gospel in Brief doesn't serve as a faithful summary of the canonical gospel." Tolstoy himself (in the preface) responds to this challenge by asking us to consider what the canonical gospel really is. Jesus did not dedicate his wisdom to teaching us how to conduct philology, translation, theology, or history. Jesus taught us how to live. That is what Tolstoy is interested in, and I think that you're interested in it, too. If you want a faithful summary of the canonical gospel, either trust a certain translator or learn Aramaic/Koine and do it yourself. If you want insight into how to live a meaningful life, read Tolstoy.
2. "The Gospel in Brief strips Jesus of divine status." This claim itself is contentious (because, by Tolstoy's account, what accounts for Jesus's perceived divinity is his exceptional, hitherto and thereafter unparalleled, recognition of goodness/spirit within him). But even if this criticism is true, we need to make ourselves aware of why Jesus's divine status, as the product of immaculate conception, matters so much to us. Stepping back from orthodoxy (which Tolstoy encourages us to do), we can see how strange this obsession is. Why should the ability to live meaningfully be tied to accepting an extremely contentious historico-metaphysical claim? For Tolstoy (and Tolstoy's Jesus), it's not the ability to believe against evidence that makes your life meaningful: it's your ability to love. I will avoid a lengthy diatribe on denominations, Protestantism, etc., but finish with this: You must be willing to shake from yourself the grasp of orthodoxy, if only temporarily, to appreciate Tolstoy's view. If you can stomach that, you might even find that his view of the gospel is considerably more coherent than any you have ever known. If you don't, delight in having stood in another pair of shoes for an hour and (I mean this genuinely) enjoy your return to the comfort of your chosen orthodox edifice.
3. "The Gospel in Brief is mechanically and organizationally wanting." Yes, it is. Sections repeat, some of the text is unclear, and there are genuine problems (I'll say more about these soon). But... so what? It's difficult, purely in terms of the appreciation of beautiful writing, to go from reading Tolstoy's peak fiction to The Gospel in Brief. But if that makes-or-breaks the book for you (instead of, rather, impelling you to remove a star from a public Goodreads review), then maybe it's worth re-reading, asking for some help with interpretation, etc. Even if it reads with difficulty on a first pass, I believe that all readers can grasp the idea that there's something really special in these pages, and it's worth the effort to tease it out.
---
The Gospel in Brief is almost certainly incorrect about a number of things, but it is the most convincing account of the gospel I have ever encountered. Some concepts are stretched, and others are circular (Tolstoy's Jesus [I paraphrase here]: "You should abandon your mortal life and follow the teaching from my father." Interlocutor: "Understood. So what is your father's teaching?" TJ: "My father's teaching is to abandon your mortal life and follow the teaching from my father"). Still, the underlying message is clear:
Tolstoy's insistence on glossing over the mysticism is the most important detail of The Gospel in Brief. Perhaps it is all true, that there's some big castle in the sky with God in a chair, who impregnated Mary with someone 100% man and 100% God. And maybe that someone was Jesus, and maybe that Jesus was resurrected. Of course, the previous two sentences are rife with blasphemy, and Tolstoy recognizes that. But he regardless abandons orthodoxy in favor of highlighting the most intuitive religious claim I can imagine: Living a good life does not hinge on accepting metaphysical claims—it hinges on love. And if the truth (about whether God is real and Jesus is his literal son) is the only thing that matters to you, recognize that truth is not what leads to a good life. Rather, it is living a good life that incidentally leads to all truth. Our orthodox traditions have led us away from this fresh perspective, and our habit of analysis leads us to spend time agonizing about what "a good life" really means rather than simply living it. But Tolstoy's Jesus assures us that we are capable of this goodness, though we may not understand the nature of its source. All man knows, when he recognizes the teaching, is that "he was blind, but now he sees. Exactly this and nothing more can be said..."
This review would continue forever if all I did was rehash what Tolstoy has written. But, I hope that I have demonstrated sufficiently that, if ever there was a reason to apply an open mind, The Gospel in Brief is it. If you let him, Tolstoy will show you something—not something new, but something you will recognize as having known all along. And if you believe him, you'll see that Jesus gave us the same invitation. That, to me, is the power of the gospel.
May 13, 2012
Very recently, I ended a long struggle with my faith by accepting that the church I attended, and all other churches, were not "true," meaning they do not come from divine inspiration and are not led by God himself. I have come to accept my own beliefs, and have come to my own conclusions. This book has served me in a very important way, as I still maintain my belief in the teachings of Christ while not necessarily accepting his divine origin. Tolstoy articulates Christ's teachings in a strikingly clear way, undiluted by mysticism or church dogma, and has enlightened my understanding of the man and his word. It is important to note that this is the gospel according to Tolstoy, and should not be used as the definitive interpretation of Christ's gospel, but I have found it most helpful in developing and organizing my own thoughts and beliefs about Christ in my new faith.
January 9, 2022
'And therefore if you know the truth and live in it, neither my death nor your own can alarm you.'
In The Gospel in Brief, Tolstoy expounds the meaning of life by presenting a unified account of Jesus' teaching as he understood it. He rejects the genealogy, the miracles and even the resurrection.
What remains is a crystal clear call to reject the life of the flesh in favour of the life of the spirit, which consists in performing the will of God the Father through loving others indiscriminately.
Whatever way you view Christianity - as the greatest collective fairytale in history, the ultimate truth or just a sympathetic yet old-fashioned message without any metaphysical grounding - a close reading of this work will undoubtedly make you question and reflect profoundly upon your ultimate goals, values and purpose.
In The Gospel in Brief, Tolstoy expounds the meaning of life by presenting a unified account of Jesus' teaching as he understood it. He rejects the genealogy, the miracles and even the resurrection.
What remains is a crystal clear call to reject the life of the flesh in favour of the life of the spirit, which consists in performing the will of God the Father through loving others indiscriminately.
Whatever way you view Christianity - as the greatest collective fairytale in history, the ultimate truth or just a sympathetic yet old-fashioned message without any metaphysical grounding - a close reading of this work will undoubtedly make you question and reflect profoundly upon your ultimate goals, values and purpose.
August 3, 2016
A masterpiece.
Read
July 31, 2024This will be a rare DNF. The reason for that is multifaceted. The description for this book sounds interesting, “the most celebrated novelist of all time retells ‘the greatest story ever told,’ integrating the four gospels into a single twelve chapter narrative of the life of Jesus. Based on his study of early Christian texts (emphasis on his)…[Tolstoy] makes accessible the powerful, mystical truth of Jesus’s spiritual teaching, stripped of artificial church doctrine.”
And it’s that last phrase that should start to raise some alarm bells. Tolstoy believed that in order to get to the true life giving meaning of the text one would have to study Christianity and separate, “the source of the pure water of life [from] an illegitimate mixture of dirt and muck that has obscured its purity for me; mingled with the high Christian teaching I found foreign and ugly teachings from the church and Hebrew tradition.” So, he is not in an uncommon position to many today. I gave to the end of the preface just to see if he would combat the primary objection anyone would have to his objective. That is, if you’re going to reject wholesale any possible supernatural events (miracles, etc.) and you consider the text wholly impure in some way, how can you trust the authenticity of any of Christ’s words being his own?
Of course, he doesn’t even deal with this objection. I made it through the preface and the first chapter or two but didn’t see any value in it. I look forward to reading Tolstoy novels in the future but I’ll refrain from this 21st century internet atheist version of Tolstoy.
And it’s that last phrase that should start to raise some alarm bells. Tolstoy believed that in order to get to the true life giving meaning of the text one would have to study Christianity and separate, “the source of the pure water of life [from] an illegitimate mixture of dirt and muck that has obscured its purity for me; mingled with the high Christian teaching I found foreign and ugly teachings from the church and Hebrew tradition.” So, he is not in an uncommon position to many today. I gave to the end of the preface just to see if he would combat the primary objection anyone would have to his objective. That is, if you’re going to reject wholesale any possible supernatural events (miracles, etc.) and you consider the text wholly impure in some way, how can you trust the authenticity of any of Christ’s words being his own?
Of course, he doesn’t even deal with this objection. I made it through the preface and the first chapter or two but didn’t see any value in it. I look forward to reading Tolstoy novels in the future but I’ll refrain from this 21st century internet atheist version of Tolstoy.
Read
July 27, 2022If it’s good enough for Wittgenstein it’s good enough for me.
August 2, 2024
Jezus spreekt wijze woorden en zonder de (in mijn mening) domme ‘wonderen’ en onzin, kan ik het een stuk meer appreciëren. Toch zie ik het licht niet, al heb ik de woorden van hem gehoord, ligt aan mij misschien.
May 26, 2020
"Dacă nu se leapădă de minciună, le mai rămâne un singur lucru: să mă prigonească pe mine, lucru pentru care, încheindu-mi scrierea, mă pregătesc cu bucurie şi cu teamă tainică de slăbiciunea mea".
August 31, 2020
Mijn Kleine Evangelie. Wat moet het heerlijk zijn om het ware geloof gevonden te hebben, en zelf een document op te stellen, wat je dan Mijn Kleine Evangelie noemt.
Was het maar even heerlijk om het product daarvan te lezen. Het was, eerlijk gezegd, een taai stuk om in te komen. Pas de laatste 40 paginas heb ik met plezier gelezen, en ik vermoed dat het naderend einde een sterkere drijfveer was dan de nieuwsgierigheid naar de inhoud.
Over hoe Tolstoj schrijft, kan ik, na dit boek te hebben gelezen, toch weinig zeggen. In zijn kleine evangelie probeert Tolstoj zo dicht mogelijk bij de ‘absolute waarheid’ te blijven. Dat betekent voor hem dat hij Bijbelpassages citeert, of eigenlijk kopieert en plakt. Met enige regelmaat pakte ik de Bijbel erbij, mij verwondend (“Staat dit er echt zo? ” “Maar dit is prachtig!”) en las ik, soms voor de zekerheid diverse vertalingen/ uitgaven, om te concluderen dat ook Tolstoj er een handje van heeft de krenten uit de evangelische pap te halen.
Nu is dat weinig anders voor zowat iedere gelovige, maar door dit te presenteren als waarheid (ook de Christen niet vreemd) ben ik er toch minder van gecharmeerd dan ik aanvankelijk verwachtte.
Meer gecharmeerd was ik van de insteek van zijn zoektocht. Hoewel de uitkomst niet zo schokkend is, heeft Tolstoj de evangeliën op een interessante manier onderzocht: Systematisch, en uit innerlijke noodzaak. Hij wilde (binnen de bestaande en geaccepteerde teksten, weliswaar) zoeken naar datgeen wat direct door Jezus gezegd is, of hem wordt toegedicht om zo bij de ware kern van het Christelijk geloof te komen. Dit werpt een ander licht op de zaak, waar je je persoonlijk al dan niet mee kunt vereenzelvigen.
Het meest waardevolle uit dit boek zijn Tolstojs persoonlijke overwegingen om dit project aan te vatten, hoe hij zijn onderzoek vormgeeft en de betekenis die zijn conclusies voor hem zelf hebben, opgetekend in de proloog. Enerzijds bescheiden benadrukt Tolstoj daarin de strikt persoonlijke aard van zijn bevindingen, anderzijds verwordt persoonlijke zingeving toch snel tot absolute waarheid, wat de lezer sceptisch maakt bij aanvang, en mogelijk ook zo achterlaat.
Mijn waardering voor ‘het project’ enerzijds, en deceptie over ‘het product’ anderzijds, hink ik een beetje op twee gedachten (benen).
Doorslaggevend voor slechts twee sterren is de hele ster aftrek voor de barslechte vertaling van Arthur Langeveld. Het Russisch is een taal die zich niet eenvoudig in Nederlandse zinsstructuren laat vatten, maar ik hoef hier toch niet te betogen dat nu juist dat hetgeen is wat een bekwaam vertaler tot zijn taak mag rekenen. Over hinderlijke spel- en grammaticafouten gezwegen.
Hopelijk ontdek ik Tolstojs ware schrijven via een andere vertaler. Op naar Chadzi Murat.
Was het maar even heerlijk om het product daarvan te lezen. Het was, eerlijk gezegd, een taai stuk om in te komen. Pas de laatste 40 paginas heb ik met plezier gelezen, en ik vermoed dat het naderend einde een sterkere drijfveer was dan de nieuwsgierigheid naar de inhoud.
Over hoe Tolstoj schrijft, kan ik, na dit boek te hebben gelezen, toch weinig zeggen. In zijn kleine evangelie probeert Tolstoj zo dicht mogelijk bij de ‘absolute waarheid’ te blijven. Dat betekent voor hem dat hij Bijbelpassages citeert, of eigenlijk kopieert en plakt. Met enige regelmaat pakte ik de Bijbel erbij, mij verwondend (“Staat dit er echt zo? ” “Maar dit is prachtig!”) en las ik, soms voor de zekerheid diverse vertalingen/ uitgaven, om te concluderen dat ook Tolstoj er een handje van heeft de krenten uit de evangelische pap te halen.
Nu is dat weinig anders voor zowat iedere gelovige, maar door dit te presenteren als waarheid (ook de Christen niet vreemd) ben ik er toch minder van gecharmeerd dan ik aanvankelijk verwachtte.
Meer gecharmeerd was ik van de insteek van zijn zoektocht. Hoewel de uitkomst niet zo schokkend is, heeft Tolstoj de evangeliën op een interessante manier onderzocht: Systematisch, en uit innerlijke noodzaak. Hij wilde (binnen de bestaande en geaccepteerde teksten, weliswaar) zoeken naar datgeen wat direct door Jezus gezegd is, of hem wordt toegedicht om zo bij de ware kern van het Christelijk geloof te komen. Dit werpt een ander licht op de zaak, waar je je persoonlijk al dan niet mee kunt vereenzelvigen.
Het meest waardevolle uit dit boek zijn Tolstojs persoonlijke overwegingen om dit project aan te vatten, hoe hij zijn onderzoek vormgeeft en de betekenis die zijn conclusies voor hem zelf hebben, opgetekend in de proloog. Enerzijds bescheiden benadrukt Tolstoj daarin de strikt persoonlijke aard van zijn bevindingen, anderzijds verwordt persoonlijke zingeving toch snel tot absolute waarheid, wat de lezer sceptisch maakt bij aanvang, en mogelijk ook zo achterlaat.
Mijn waardering voor ‘het project’ enerzijds, en deceptie over ‘het product’ anderzijds, hink ik een beetje op twee gedachten (benen).
Doorslaggevend voor slechts twee sterren is de hele ster aftrek voor de barslechte vertaling van Arthur Langeveld. Het Russisch is een taal die zich niet eenvoudig in Nederlandse zinsstructuren laat vatten, maar ik hoef hier toch niet te betogen dat nu juist dat hetgeen is wat een bekwaam vertaler tot zijn taak mag rekenen. Over hinderlijke spel- en grammaticafouten gezwegen.
Hopelijk ontdek ik Tolstojs ware schrijven via een andere vertaler. Op naar Chadzi Murat.
February 7, 2021
I decided to read this book because I thought it would be edifying to read the work of someone I had been informed was a fellow anarchist pacifist Christian. I was very disapointed. The Gospel in Brief is Tolstoy's synthesis of the four Gospels. But in Tolstoy's "Gospel," the historical Jesus, a first century Jewish apocalyptic prophet, has been replaced by a teacher of abstract religious ideas. Tolstoy's ideas.
Even though it is historically certain that Jesus's reputation as a miracle worker goes back to the very earliest eyewitnesses, Tolstoy removes all the stories of Jesus's miracles (including His resurrection). Even though it is historically certain that the announcement of the imminent fulfillment of the LORD's covenant promises to His people Israel was central to the teaching of Jesus, Tolstoy entirely rejects the Old Testament. As for the parts of the Gospels that Tolstoy doesn't remove, he freely alters them and adds in his own interpolations in order to make Jesus say what Tolstoy wants him to say. For example, Tolstoy transforms numerous statements of Jesus about Himself, the Son of Man, into abstract statements about human religiosity.
Projecting his frustrations with the modern Eastern Orthodox Church back into the first century (Tolstoy consistently translates "Pharisees" as "Orthodox"), Tolstoy claims that the Church, even the Apostles, got the teachings of Jesus wrong from the very beginning. Tolstoy thus absurdly claims that he, a nineteenth century Russian, has a better understanding of Jesus's teachings than the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus. Tolstoy does not even try to claim that his understanding of Jesus's teaching is based on careful historical study; instead, it is based on what fulfills Tolstoy's own felt psychological needs. This work has no merit, historically or theologically.
Even though it is historically certain that Jesus's reputation as a miracle worker goes back to the very earliest eyewitnesses, Tolstoy removes all the stories of Jesus's miracles (including His resurrection). Even though it is historically certain that the announcement of the imminent fulfillment of the LORD's covenant promises to His people Israel was central to the teaching of Jesus, Tolstoy entirely rejects the Old Testament. As for the parts of the Gospels that Tolstoy doesn't remove, he freely alters them and adds in his own interpolations in order to make Jesus say what Tolstoy wants him to say. For example, Tolstoy transforms numerous statements of Jesus about Himself, the Son of Man, into abstract statements about human religiosity.
Projecting his frustrations with the modern Eastern Orthodox Church back into the first century (Tolstoy consistently translates "Pharisees" as "Orthodox"), Tolstoy claims that the Church, even the Apostles, got the teachings of Jesus wrong from the very beginning. Tolstoy thus absurdly claims that he, a nineteenth century Russian, has a better understanding of Jesus's teachings than the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus. Tolstoy does not even try to claim that his understanding of Jesus's teaching is based on careful historical study; instead, it is based on what fulfills Tolstoy's own felt psychological needs. This work has no merit, historically or theologically.
October 10, 2015
Russian author Leo Tolstoy spent the last 30+ years of his life as a moral and religious leader (various writings even got him excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church). His ideas about nonviolent resistance influenced social leader, Mahatma Gandhi. This book, The Gospel in Brief, is a result of those years of study. After studying "the original" Greek texts, Tolstoy integrates the four gospels into one condensed view of the life of Jesus, minus all the church dogma and interpretation, miracles, and the supernatural. The effect, at least to me, is a more compelling solution to life than the Bible in its entirety, as well as a huge message to followers today who strive to do the opposite of Jesus' teachings in an effort to uphold hateful minutia found elsewhere in the Bible, and there is plenty to be found! And bonus - without all the contradictions! Does this eliminate room for interpretation? No. I still read that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, and that we are all One, with an indwelling God that makes us all united. Communion with the whole made possible by staying present and loving one another equally. I think Tolstoy and Jesus were trying to make this point, but "Father and Son", can still be taken literally by those who prefer to see it that way. I certainly see why Gandhi was a fan.
July 19, 2012
not great. i was really excited to read it, but in the end Tolstoy didn't re-discover the real Jesus, he created a gnostic one, devoid of the warmth of the Gospels' Jesus.
It reminded me of Dickens' similar attempt (his telling of the Gospels for his kids) where he created a Jesus who was no longer God, just a really nice guy.
there were some interesting translation attempts, but in the end he was disingenuous to even his own brief. in the end i couldn't finish it, i was just getting too annoyed; a great disappointment.
It reminded me of Dickens' similar attempt (his telling of the Gospels for his kids) where he created a Jesus who was no longer God, just a really nice guy.
there were some interesting translation attempts, but in the end he was disingenuous to even his own brief. in the end i couldn't finish it, i was just getting too annoyed; a great disappointment.
May 17, 2019
I loved this. If I had children, I would read this to them.
June 10, 2017
Look, and you won't see it. Listen, and you won't hear it. Use it, and you will never use it up -- Lao Tzu in the 6th century BC.
Religion is one of those things that does beautiful things as much as it does horrible. The opposing beliefs, 'rights' and 'wrongs,' and misinterpretations have been, and still are the root of torrid wars, millions of deaths, the collapsing of civilisations and racial tensions -- just to name a few examples. On the other hand, the sense of community, belief in afterlife, pressures to live well, and the strength of faith one gets from religion, have for centuries given people hope, a sense of belonging, reason to live, and purpose to serve and do good to others; for some, religion is everything. It is for the former that I am not a big fan of religion; it's not that religion is the problem, but the way people go about the whole of idea of it. I never knew how to articulate well on my, neutral stance--shall we say, until I read this little gem from Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy is one of the greats; he is one of the most revered writers and thinkers in history. Until this book I had not read any of his work; I had only read his bio and some secondary accounts from other writers. It was obvious from this reading how intelligent and wise a man he was, and how seriously he took the topic of human nature, and philosophy as a whole. Many of the greatest thinkers -- of past and present -- are not really known for their religious works (with the exception of religious leaders and a rare few others), so when this book first came to my attention I was a little surprised Tolstoy was the Author. Why would Tolstoy write a religion-based book?
The reason to that answer is exactly the reason I am so glad he did. This book isn't about bible-bashing, preaching or trying to convert readers, or about the power of God, why you should be good etc etc; this is a book about understanding the reasons for, and wisdom behind, religion -- namely, Christianity.
An existential crisis was the inspiration behind Tolstoy's writing of this book: he was fed up with the mixed messages conveyed by opposing religious beliefs, and the differing dogma of the philosophers; he couldn't make sense of religious interpretations on the meaning of life (In the book he tells you why. Hint: it's a little to do with the tens of thousands of different transcriptions of the religious texts.), and he was not feeling any more enlightened following the philosophers. At this point he decided to return to the religion he was most familiar with, Christianity, to see if there was anything worthwhile there, anything that may possibly, just possibly, enlighten him, or give him the answer to the biggest question of them all -- What is the meaning of life?
He dived deep into the heart of Christianity to find out -- where it started, why there are so many interpretations, why people follow it; and where the idea of 'God' came from, and what it really means. Here he arrived at the gospels, and through rigorous word-for-word examination in an attempt to discover what it is they are actually saying, he had an awakening. The result of which is the book 'The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated' -- a comprehensive, investigative and very dense breakdown of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
'The Gospel In Brief' is the shortened version; a condensed, precise and easy-to-read (after the first couple of chapters) book that shows you the important, life-changing lessons to be found in the 4 gospels. Although it contains far less words and expounding it is no less valuable for it. This is not my opinion but the one of Tolstoy himself, who in the intro tells you there is as much to be gained from 'The Gospel In Brief' as from his larger work, which is a book more for academics, those who would like to know much more, and those who are still not convinced of his argument. I say argument, but it is not that; the whole book is a honest and rational breakdown of the wisdom of the gospels, and the benefits to be gained from them. To call it an argument is inaccurate, if not an injustice, but for the sake of simplicity, and a lack of vocabulary of my part, I will call it so anyway.
You may think you know the story of Jesus Christ; as a result of your upbringing, the way you were schooled, any reading experiences covering the topic of religion, and your religious beliefs, you may have a complete story in your head of Jesus Christ -- who he was, what he said and did, etc, but, unless you have researched and taken serious the story of Jesus, to the extensive degree Tolstoy did, what you know is probably wrong; at the very least, your understanding is unlikely to be completely correct.
In short, the argument Tolstoy makes with this book is this: what Jesus Christ taught and stood for is almost the opposite of what is taught about his teachings today; in other words, since he walked the earth and gifted his followers with his profound wisdom and knowledge, almost every interpretation of what he said and did has been incorrect, skewed, biased and ultimately, very harmful. Tolstoy makes this point by showing you how what Jesus actually taught his disciples and those lucky to meet him, was how to make sense of life and your existence; how to understand yourself, and what true happiness is. And he did this by teaching them how to live: live simply, do good to others, be present, love each other, do no evil, and be faithful; practices which, sound very much like the wisdom of the revered Philosophers and though leaders (Socrates, Seneca, Aquinas, Lao Tzu, The Buddha, etc), and in fact of many religious teachings of today. The problem is these teachings are not presented for what they truly are/were; they are presented in the same light as all the wrong interpretations, falsifications and santa-clausifications that Tolstoy was so frustrated and bewildered by.
Whether you are religious or not, reading this book will be awakening. It is not an advocacy of religion, of Christianity, or even of Jesus Christ himself; neither is it a biased, selective or imprecise rant about the meaning of life; it is a guide, a guide that will teach you how to think, how to act, and how to live, if that is, you are interested in being happy and peaceful, doing good, and having a solid purpose in life. Not only that: because of the way Tolstoy takes you through his process -- with his beautiful style, honesty and clear explanations, you will also learn how to think about all religious ideas, and how to draw from them lessons that can actually impact your life for the better; and, as a bonus, subconsciously you'll be learning how to write like a great.
Religion is one of those things that does beautiful things as much as it does horrible. The opposing beliefs, 'rights' and 'wrongs,' and misinterpretations have been, and still are the root of torrid wars, millions of deaths, the collapsing of civilisations and racial tensions -- just to name a few examples. On the other hand, the sense of community, belief in afterlife, pressures to live well, and the strength of faith one gets from religion, have for centuries given people hope, a sense of belonging, reason to live, and purpose to serve and do good to others; for some, religion is everything. It is for the former that I am not a big fan of religion; it's not that religion is the problem, but the way people go about the whole of idea of it. I never knew how to articulate well on my, neutral stance--shall we say, until I read this little gem from Leo Tolstoy.
Tolstoy is one of the greats; he is one of the most revered writers and thinkers in history. Until this book I had not read any of his work; I had only read his bio and some secondary accounts from other writers. It was obvious from this reading how intelligent and wise a man he was, and how seriously he took the topic of human nature, and philosophy as a whole. Many of the greatest thinkers -- of past and present -- are not really known for their religious works (with the exception of religious leaders and a rare few others), so when this book first came to my attention I was a little surprised Tolstoy was the Author. Why would Tolstoy write a religion-based book?
The reason to that answer is exactly the reason I am so glad he did. This book isn't about bible-bashing, preaching or trying to convert readers, or about the power of God, why you should be good etc etc; this is a book about understanding the reasons for, and wisdom behind, religion -- namely, Christianity.
An existential crisis was the inspiration behind Tolstoy's writing of this book: he was fed up with the mixed messages conveyed by opposing religious beliefs, and the differing dogma of the philosophers; he couldn't make sense of religious interpretations on the meaning of life (In the book he tells you why. Hint: it's a little to do with the tens of thousands of different transcriptions of the religious texts.), and he was not feeling any more enlightened following the philosophers. At this point he decided to return to the religion he was most familiar with, Christianity, to see if there was anything worthwhile there, anything that may possibly, just possibly, enlighten him, or give him the answer to the biggest question of them all -- What is the meaning of life?
He dived deep into the heart of Christianity to find out -- where it started, why there are so many interpretations, why people follow it; and where the idea of 'God' came from, and what it really means. Here he arrived at the gospels, and through rigorous word-for-word examination in an attempt to discover what it is they are actually saying, he had an awakening. The result of which is the book 'The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated' -- a comprehensive, investigative and very dense breakdown of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
'The Gospel In Brief' is the shortened version; a condensed, precise and easy-to-read (after the first couple of chapters) book that shows you the important, life-changing lessons to be found in the 4 gospels. Although it contains far less words and expounding it is no less valuable for it. This is not my opinion but the one of Tolstoy himself, who in the intro tells you there is as much to be gained from 'The Gospel In Brief' as from his larger work, which is a book more for academics, those who would like to know much more, and those who are still not convinced of his argument. I say argument, but it is not that; the whole book is a honest and rational breakdown of the wisdom of the gospels, and the benefits to be gained from them. To call it an argument is inaccurate, if not an injustice, but for the sake of simplicity, and a lack of vocabulary of my part, I will call it so anyway.
You may think you know the story of Jesus Christ; as a result of your upbringing, the way you were schooled, any reading experiences covering the topic of religion, and your religious beliefs, you may have a complete story in your head of Jesus Christ -- who he was, what he said and did, etc, but, unless you have researched and taken serious the story of Jesus, to the extensive degree Tolstoy did, what you know is probably wrong; at the very least, your understanding is unlikely to be completely correct.
In short, the argument Tolstoy makes with this book is this: what Jesus Christ taught and stood for is almost the opposite of what is taught about his teachings today; in other words, since he walked the earth and gifted his followers with his profound wisdom and knowledge, almost every interpretation of what he said and did has been incorrect, skewed, biased and ultimately, very harmful. Tolstoy makes this point by showing you how what Jesus actually taught his disciples and those lucky to meet him, was how to make sense of life and your existence; how to understand yourself, and what true happiness is. And he did this by teaching them how to live: live simply, do good to others, be present, love each other, do no evil, and be faithful; practices which, sound very much like the wisdom of the revered Philosophers and though leaders (Socrates, Seneca, Aquinas, Lao Tzu, The Buddha, etc), and in fact of many religious teachings of today. The problem is these teachings are not presented for what they truly are/were; they are presented in the same light as all the wrong interpretations, falsifications and santa-clausifications that Tolstoy was so frustrated and bewildered by.
Whether you are religious or not, reading this book will be awakening. It is not an advocacy of religion, of Christianity, or even of Jesus Christ himself; neither is it a biased, selective or imprecise rant about the meaning of life; it is a guide, a guide that will teach you how to think, how to act, and how to live, if that is, you are interested in being happy and peaceful, doing good, and having a solid purpose in life. Not only that: because of the way Tolstoy takes you through his process -- with his beautiful style, honesty and clear explanations, you will also learn how to think about all religious ideas, and how to draw from them lessons that can actually impact your life for the better; and, as a bonus, subconsciously you'll be learning how to write like a great.
Read
December 27, 2020It's a book which manages to be both deeply flawed and misguided, while also being correct at it's absolute core. It usefully lays out the core principle of universal love in such a way that I finally think I understand how "turning the other cheek" and not "resisting evil" can coexist with working to make the world a better place. In this way, I think it's helpful as a place to start, but it's insufficient by its own demonstration. The simplified treatment of The Gospel comes with an also simplified presentation, which makes the oversimplification of the treatment apparent: for instance, the different meanings of parables to differing audiences (which are only given a single interpretation) is elided and so is the parallel in the triple denial by Peter and the triple pleading by Pilate. These complexities are not so evident in traditional narratives of The Gospel, so the simplification demonstrates the actual unsimplicity. In this way, the book fails itself. It powerfully expresses an (I think) correct principle, but the book is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot accomplish the goal it sets out for itself of clearing all previously existing orthodox, including replacing the text The Gospel.
So all in all, I'll probably keep reading Tolstoy, because I found it interesting and useful, but I doubt I'll become a Tolstoyan.
(I know this is only one part of a larger work, so pointing to insufficiencies in complexity may be unfair, but the preface specifies that Tolstoy takes The Gospel to have an immediately apparent meaning, which he's presenting in this section, and the rest of the work will be doing other work, I suppose. Since the specific problem is with the meaning of The Gospel, which is so clearly demonstrated to be not self-evident, I think the objections can stand.)
So all in all, I'll probably keep reading Tolstoy, because I found it interesting and useful, but I doubt I'll become a Tolstoyan.
(I know this is only one part of a larger work, so pointing to insufficiencies in complexity may be unfair, but the preface specifies that Tolstoy takes The Gospel to have an immediately apparent meaning, which he's presenting in this section, and the rest of the work will be doing other work, I suppose. Since the specific problem is with the meaning of The Gospel, which is so clearly demonstrated to be not self-evident, I think the objections can stand.)
April 7, 2019
This is a good read for anyone who asks, "What should I do? How should I live?" and for anyone who wants to read the Christian gospels as interpreted and consolidated by an amazing thinker.
I'll note that this translation is excellent. It includes Tolstoy's chapter summaries, which not all translations include, and in those summaries Tolstoy distills his ideas down to their most concise form. It's lovely.
Not only is the translation lovely, so is Tolstoy's thinking and writing. Few other authors make me think to the degree that Tolstoy does. He writes in a way that challenges me to question every premise and assertion. This book has prompted me to write more spontaneous, long-winded notes and examinations than probably any other book.
I don't agree 100% with every conclusion that Tolstoy draws in this, but I can't remember ever agreeing with any author 100%.
If you like to think and you like to make sure you're living it right, this is an excellent read.
I'll note that this translation is excellent. It includes Tolstoy's chapter summaries, which not all translations include, and in those summaries Tolstoy distills his ideas down to their most concise form. It's lovely.
Not only is the translation lovely, so is Tolstoy's thinking and writing. Few other authors make me think to the degree that Tolstoy does. He writes in a way that challenges me to question every premise and assertion. This book has prompted me to write more spontaneous, long-winded notes and examinations than probably any other book.
I don't agree 100% with every conclusion that Tolstoy draws in this, but I can't remember ever agreeing with any author 100%.
If you like to think and you like to make sure you're living it right, this is an excellent read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews