![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maybe I should have held off longer before delving into the critical work on the historical Jesus, especially since I was enjoying some real emotional and philosophical benefits from my re-budding faith, for it is nice to have your metaphysical vision fixed on a far-off absolute Truth with a heartfelt sense of transcendent Beauty, to behold a sort of moral North Star. I rather hate losing that. On the other hand, if this were indeed a Christian universe, Hell was probably my more likely home anyway, and you know the old joke: you check in but you don’t check out.
However, I did give Christianity my earnest and open devotion from since the beginning of last summer. After all, I even read Augustine and memorized holy Scriptures! It did not seem unfair to offer some challenge to this divine perspective by taking up a good critical work from the modern era. In any case, when I was browsing the library’s Christian section, I could not resist Russell Shorto’s “Gospel Truth: The New Image of Jesus Emerging from Science and History and Why It Matters.” Such works can be technical and arcane, very academical, but Shorto sort of does for critical Jesus studies what, say, Timothy Ferris does for natural science, popularizing the discussion, and since the topic of Christ is more personal and more central to our culture, Shorto is even more successful in giving us a fun read, making the study of Jesus more like a suspense novel - a “Who is John Galt?” kind of thing, but a thousand times more pointed.
And it is not like this book is written in the chortling, tsk-tsk spirit of a Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Shorto grew up Catholic, and although he said that he hoped his research “would finally kill Jesus for [him]”, as though Christ were a heavy monkey on his back, his next statement is, “Of course, they didn’t.” Though, unless my reading skills are worse than I thought, his Jesus is no longer the God who was born of a virgin and is now sitting behind the clouds waiting to come down and pass judgment on the living and the dead.
As for myself, one might think, going by my entries and comments of late, that I had always safely eschewed supernaturalism, and did I not always maintain the practical and handy agnostic label, even if I would shade that a bit by calling myself a Christian agnostic, that is, as an agnostic who was partial to the idea of divine reality, I favored the Christian approach to such exalted mysteries? Yet, I imagine that my bright and careful readers could discern between my lines more than a passing curiosity and interest in the rugged old cross. Yes, I was definitely hoping more fervently that life might have a happy ending after all, and frankly, nothing short of divine intervention can do that for me. Now I suppose the only happy ending that I can be sure of is the kind you buy at a massage parlor of dubious reputation.
Nevertheless, these several months of immersion into the Christian mysteries has only deepened my literary interest in the Gospels and Christian lore. The Iliad may read better than the Pentateuch, but the Old Testament has its charms, and Milton is there to give all the literary flash and wonder you can want to Genesis and the romantic saga of Adam and Eve. The drama and the inspiration of the Gospels are on par with the best that literature has to offer anywhere. I will be visiting here a lot in my reading life.
Moreover, I am too needy and dreamy to be a hardcore atheist. In other words, my basic philosophical position hasn’t changed despite all this emotional seesawing. I remain agnostic, even a Christian agnostic. I am not as starry eyed as I may have been a few months ago, but neither am I without wonder and hope that this old world and this dreary life might yet be more miraculous and magical than we can conceive of it with our animal senses. It is like being on a merry-go-round: I step off where I got on, but what an exhilaratingly dizzy little trip! Like a small kid running to the park with his small friends, I will probably ride it again and again - going from doubt to faith and back again.
However, I did give Christianity my earnest and open devotion from since the beginning of last summer. After all, I even read Augustine and memorized holy Scriptures! It did not seem unfair to offer some challenge to this divine perspective by taking up a good critical work from the modern era. In any case, when I was browsing the library’s Christian section, I could not resist Russell Shorto’s “Gospel Truth: The New Image of Jesus Emerging from Science and History and Why It Matters.” Such works can be technical and arcane, very academical, but Shorto sort of does for critical Jesus studies what, say, Timothy Ferris does for natural science, popularizing the discussion, and since the topic of Christ is more personal and more central to our culture, Shorto is even more successful in giving us a fun read, making the study of Jesus more like a suspense novel - a “Who is John Galt?” kind of thing, but a thousand times more pointed.
And it is not like this book is written in the chortling, tsk-tsk spirit of a Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins. Shorto grew up Catholic, and although he said that he hoped his research “would finally kill Jesus for [him]”, as though Christ were a heavy monkey on his back, his next statement is, “Of course, they didn’t.” Though, unless my reading skills are worse than I thought, his Jesus is no longer the God who was born of a virgin and is now sitting behind the clouds waiting to come down and pass judgment on the living and the dead.
As for myself, one might think, going by my entries and comments of late, that I had always safely eschewed supernaturalism, and did I not always maintain the practical and handy agnostic label, even if I would shade that a bit by calling myself a Christian agnostic, that is, as an agnostic who was partial to the idea of divine reality, I favored the Christian approach to such exalted mysteries? Yet, I imagine that my bright and careful readers could discern between my lines more than a passing curiosity and interest in the rugged old cross. Yes, I was definitely hoping more fervently that life might have a happy ending after all, and frankly, nothing short of divine intervention can do that for me. Now I suppose the only happy ending that I can be sure of is the kind you buy at a massage parlor of dubious reputation.
Nevertheless, these several months of immersion into the Christian mysteries has only deepened my literary interest in the Gospels and Christian lore. The Iliad may read better than the Pentateuch, but the Old Testament has its charms, and Milton is there to give all the literary flash and wonder you can want to Genesis and the romantic saga of Adam and Eve. The drama and the inspiration of the Gospels are on par with the best that literature has to offer anywhere. I will be visiting here a lot in my reading life.
Moreover, I am too needy and dreamy to be a hardcore atheist. In other words, my basic philosophical position hasn’t changed despite all this emotional seesawing. I remain agnostic, even a Christian agnostic. I am not as starry eyed as I may have been a few months ago, but neither am I without wonder and hope that this old world and this dreary life might yet be more miraculous and magical than we can conceive of it with our animal senses. It is like being on a merry-go-round: I step off where I got on, but what an exhilaratingly dizzy little trip! Like a small kid running to the park with his small friends, I will probably ride it again and again - going from doubt to faith and back again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Long time no see
Date: 2010-11-15 08:19 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-11-15 09:05 pm (UTC)From:Re: Long time no see
Date: 2010-11-15 09:34 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-11-15 09:36 pm (UTC)From:Re: Long time no see
Date: 2010-11-16 06:47 pm (UTC)From: