And his assumptions about heart and mind are those of our time, not his. More tellingly, it presents a Jesus who assumes a strict opposition between body and soul, making him more ancient Greek than ancient Jew. This difference is not limited to the details that offended the pious. Instead, this book reconfigures names, places, and events known from the New Testament to weave a story that bears resemblance in its rough contours to the gospel accounts but differs from it in significant ways. If that were its intention, one would toss it aside, not out of shock at its allegations, but for its careless disregard of geography and history. Further, it doesn't fit the genre of historical fiction. In the first place, it's a novel, not a work of history or theology. Dan Brown has done his bit to diminish the shock factor of that supposition.īut even without these writings, ancient and modern, the outrage was misplaced, based as it was on mistaking this book's genre. More shocking was depicting Jesus coming down from the cross and enjoying the delights of conjugal love with the sisters Mary and Martha, numerous offspring, and a long life of satisfying labor in Bethany.
Yet this possibility was implicit in the gospel narratives, as borne out by the publication a few years ago of the second-century Gospel of Judas. Indeed, Jesus encouraged him to perform the crucial role in carrying it out. One of the most sensational aspects was its portrayal of Judas as the only disciple who knew in advance what the carpenter's son planned. This book outraged religious sensibilities when it appeared more than a half-century ago, as did the Martin Scorsese film based on it.
0 kommentar(er)
