Sunday, July 16, 2006
Finished reading A.N. Wilson's "Jesus, A Life," the biography of Jesus mentioned a few posts down. Here are some cursory thoughts on the text.
Reviewers have criticized Wilson for not doing any of his own research for this book, and for various other shortcomings. I appreciate scholarly work on the scriptures as much or more than the next person, and they have their usefulness in biblical exegesis. A book like Wilson's can ideally serve as an aggregator for these various works, and a layman's voice can render abstruse comments in a more accessible manner.
In a few instances, Wilson I think succeeds in this de-mystification of basic New Testament analysis. But he does so with a sardonic tone that reminds me of groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and it is noteworthy that Wilson has vacillated between the Catholic and Anglican Churches, but in the most recent reports I can find Wilson declares himself an atheist. So as Wilson chooses and analyzes information, he does so not through the eyes of faith, but as noted in a post below, still seems to have a deeper appreciation and respect for the Quaker Gospel of John than many other writers. According to Wilson, subtle linguistic and cultural clues suggest that content in the Gospel of John was influenced more by the Jewish origins of Christianity, and elements of the language suggest the content likely started off in Aramaic -- with some words tying in more closely to the way Jesus and his disciples would have spoken and understood things.
However, Wilson also spends a good deal of ink suggesting that the evangelist Paul could have met Jesus before the Crucification, and that his conversion may have been a reaction to some type of guilt for a role in Jesus' death. Much of the content of the book is wildly speculative, and Wilson seems to my eyes to slip easily back and forth between suggesting certain scriptural passages are obviously not factual and then referring to them as part of the landscape of Jesus' life.
Some very liberal biblical scholars and theologians can see the scriptures simply as a spiritual history of a people -- a record of their religious beliefs and experiences. Yet, these scholars and theologians can have a deep relationship with Jesus Christ. But the one statement that convinced me with absolute certainty that Wilson is not among this aforementioned group was this passage from page 169 of my hardcover edition ...
"So the historian is faced with a double problem: the problem of seeing what, if anything, can be extracted from the Gospel writings which can be regarded as historical, and the problem of accounting for the faith which produced those writings in the first place. I am not here subscribing to the well-worn 'Pentacost' argument, which asks how a group of poor, frightened individuals, whose master has been crucified could have been transformed into a group of highly articulate men and women, prepared to die in order to communicate their faith in the Gospel (sometimes called in such arguments 'the Resurrection experience') to the world. The poorness of this argument is that it presupposes that we know what 'the disciples' were in fact like before they had 'the resurrection experience.' History is full of people who were willing to die for their beliefs. The Resurrection is important not because of the change it effected on his disciples, but because of the chage it seems to have effected on Jesus himself ..."
Here is my response to Wilson on this point. Imagine someone who believes every word of the scriptures -- including the physical resurrection of Jesus on the third day after his death -- but does not allow that belief to change the way he or she relates to God, and does not have any type of ongoing relationship with Christ. The point of the resurrection and Pentacost and Jesus' ministry is EXACTLY that it should affect us in our hearts. To separate the history and the theology from the religious experience is to my mind to crucify Jesus all over again. My own theology might be liberal enough that there are elements of the Gospels I do not believe refer to historical events as much as symbolic ones, but even for someone with squishy theology the meaning of the Gospels must be felt in their ability to change us inside of our hearts. Whether we encounter a risen, physical Christ and stick our hand in his side, see Christ transfigured on the day of Pentacost as did the disciples before their transformation from squabbling followers into Christ-filled leaders, or whether we simply commune with Christ Jesus the Inward Free Teacher, it is exactly our inward experience and the effect that Christ has on us that matters.
Wilson's book does do a good job of comparing the Passion stories in the three synoptic Gospels and in John, and the book has a few endearing qualities, including the fact that if you are lucky as I am you will find it dirt cheap at a place like Half Price Books while waiting for your alignment job to be completed. Christ-centered Quakers will find plenty to argue with Wilson about, so if a good argument drives you deeper into the scriptures, this could be a book for you.
Reviewers have criticized Wilson for not doing any of his own research for this book, and for various other shortcomings. I appreciate scholarly work on the scriptures as much or more than the next person, and they have their usefulness in biblical exegesis. A book like Wilson's can ideally serve as an aggregator for these various works, and a layman's voice can render abstruse comments in a more accessible manner.
In a few instances, Wilson I think succeeds in this de-mystification of basic New Testament analysis. But he does so with a sardonic tone that reminds me of groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and it is noteworthy that Wilson has vacillated between the Catholic and Anglican Churches, but in the most recent reports I can find Wilson declares himself an atheist. So as Wilson chooses and analyzes information, he does so not through the eyes of faith, but as noted in a post below, still seems to have a deeper appreciation and respect for the Quaker Gospel of John than many other writers. According to Wilson, subtle linguistic and cultural clues suggest that content in the Gospel of John was influenced more by the Jewish origins of Christianity, and elements of the language suggest the content likely started off in Aramaic -- with some words tying in more closely to the way Jesus and his disciples would have spoken and understood things.
However, Wilson also spends a good deal of ink suggesting that the evangelist Paul could have met Jesus before the Crucification, and that his conversion may have been a reaction to some type of guilt for a role in Jesus' death. Much of the content of the book is wildly speculative, and Wilson seems to my eyes to slip easily back and forth between suggesting certain scriptural passages are obviously not factual and then referring to them as part of the landscape of Jesus' life.
Some very liberal biblical scholars and theologians can see the scriptures simply as a spiritual history of a people -- a record of their religious beliefs and experiences. Yet, these scholars and theologians can have a deep relationship with Jesus Christ. But the one statement that convinced me with absolute certainty that Wilson is not among this aforementioned group was this passage from page 169 of my hardcover edition ...
"So the historian is faced with a double problem: the problem of seeing what, if anything, can be extracted from the Gospel writings which can be regarded as historical, and the problem of accounting for the faith which produced those writings in the first place. I am not here subscribing to the well-worn 'Pentacost' argument, which asks how a group of poor, frightened individuals, whose master has been crucified could have been transformed into a group of highly articulate men and women, prepared to die in order to communicate their faith in the Gospel (sometimes called in such arguments 'the Resurrection experience') to the world. The poorness of this argument is that it presupposes that we know what 'the disciples' were in fact like before they had 'the resurrection experience.' History is full of people who were willing to die for their beliefs. The Resurrection is important not because of the change it effected on his disciples, but because of the chage it seems to have effected on Jesus himself ..."
Here is my response to Wilson on this point. Imagine someone who believes every word of the scriptures -- including the physical resurrection of Jesus on the third day after his death -- but does not allow that belief to change the way he or she relates to God, and does not have any type of ongoing relationship with Christ. The point of the resurrection and Pentacost and Jesus' ministry is EXACTLY that it should affect us in our hearts. To separate the history and the theology from the religious experience is to my mind to crucify Jesus all over again. My own theology might be liberal enough that there are elements of the Gospels I do not believe refer to historical events as much as symbolic ones, but even for someone with squishy theology the meaning of the Gospels must be felt in their ability to change us inside of our hearts. Whether we encounter a risen, physical Christ and stick our hand in his side, see Christ transfigured on the day of Pentacost as did the disciples before their transformation from squabbling followers into Christ-filled leaders, or whether we simply commune with Christ Jesus the Inward Free Teacher, it is exactly our inward experience and the effect that Christ has on us that matters.
Wilson's book does do a good job of comparing the Passion stories in the three synoptic Gospels and in John, and the book has a few endearing qualities, including the fact that if you are lucky as I am you will find it dirt cheap at a place like Half Price Books while waiting for your alignment job to be completed. Christ-centered Quakers will find plenty to argue with Wilson about, so if a good argument drives you deeper into the scriptures, this could be a book for you.
