Monday, December 05, 2005

Review of Anne Rice's Christ the Lord

I want to be honest from the start and tell you that when I first saw an article about this book, I was skeptical. Anne Rice is a fairly young Christian, coming out of years of studying and writing about very dark things. There has been a lot of hype about this book and how the former queen of all things dark is now attempting to write a first person narrative of the early years of Christ. Also noted in the articles I've read has been the fact that she relied on many extrabiblical sources, such as the apocryphal gospels. So yes, I was skeptical.


Nonetheless, I picked up the book, and was - I admit - quickly hooked. She's a great writer, and this is a really good story. Now the very first chapter contains a story that I immediately recognized from the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus causes the death of another child, using his divine power, and then raises the same child from the dead. For those not familiar with this gospel, let me just quote Wikipedia a site which attempts to present a balanced view of most things:


The text describes the life of the child Jesus, with fanciful supernatural events. One of the episodes involves Jesus making clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life, an act also attributed to Jesus in the Qur'an, thus indicating the text may have had substantial influence on Arabic tradition by the 7th century. In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, so Jesus makes the child's body wither into a corpse, and another child is killed by Jesus when he accidentally bumps into him.

When Joseph and Mary's neighbor's complain, they are miraculously struck blind by Jesus. Jesus then starts receiving lessons, but arrogantly tries to teach the teacher instead, upsetting the teacher who suspects supernatural origins. Jesus is amused by this suspicion, which he confirms, and revokes all his earlier cruelty. Subsequently he heals a friend who is killed when he falls from a roof, and another who cuts his foot with an axe.


Note that Rice also uses the story of the clay birds. Here is what Rice has to say about her use of this source in her "Author's Note" to the book:


Then there were the legends -- The Apocrypha -- including the tantalizing tales in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas describing a boy Jesus who could strike a child dead, bring another to life, turn clay birds in to living creatures, and perform other miracles. I'd stumbled on them very early in my research, in multiple editions, and never forgot them. And neither had the world. They were fanciful, some of them humorous, extreme to be sure, but they had lived on into the Middle Ages, and beyond. I couldn't get these legends out of my mind.

Ultimately, I chose to embrace this material, to enclose it within the canonical framework as best I could. I felt there was a deep truth in it, and I wanted to preserve that truth as it spoke to me. Of course, that is an assumption. But I made it. And perhaps in assuming that Jesus did manifest supernatural powers at an early age I am somehow being true to the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus was God and Man at all times.


For those interested, here is a link describing that Council. I would agree with the dual nature of Christ - that is basic theology. But I don't think her explanation gives adequate validation to her use of a non-Biblical source that so clearly contains false assertions about Jesus.

At this point some may think that I am being too dogmatic in my approach to this book. Perhaps so. I will say that I did not find fault with Rice's reliance on certain Catholic beliefs about Mary - for example her perpetual virginity. Rice takes the traditional Catholic view that James was a son of Joseph from a previous marriage and that although he took Mary as his wife, they did not have relations. That's not how I read the scripture, but its also not all that important. I was willing to go along with her on that issue, because I don't think it reflects one way or another on the character or nature of Christ.

I did take issue, however with a variance that Rice seems to have taken from scripture. The climax of her book takes place when Jesus is eight years old and returns to the the Temple with his family. She works in the account (from Luke 2:41-52) of Jesus getting left behind at the temple for three days. This works nicely into the arc of her story. However, a close reading of Luke will reveal that this in fact happened when Christ was twelve years old, not eight. Not hugely important I suppose, but it does reveal a willingness in Rice to ignore scripture in order to make her story work.

For those who still think I'm taking these details too seriously, let me say this. I am familiar with two other fictionalized accounts of biblical stories. There are more, I'm sure, but the two that I am most familiar with are Paul by Walter Wangerin Jr. and The Red Tent by Anita Diamant. I read the first of the two (my wife read the second) and while I don't recall finding any discrepancies between the ideas in Paul and the Biblical account, I didn't pay as much attention. Why? Because it doesn't matter that much who Paul was. Was he tall or short? Nice or mean? Doesn't really matter.

But it does matter who Jesus was. Every detail matters. Why? Because this was God incarnate. So any detail of who he was, reflects directly on the nature of God. That's no small thing - but it seems to me that Rice is treating it as a small thing. Yes, its a fictional account, but let's be honest - even a fictional account is an attempt to affect how the reader views the details of the non-fiction event. For Rice to pull in material from such clearly false sources as the Infancy Gospel seems inexcusable.

I would love to be able to recommend this book. It is enjoyable, and I think there's some good aspects to it, but I think that all of it is outweighed by Rice's treading too carelessly on sacred ground. Worse, I get the impression that she has plans to continue the series, and delve further into the early life of Christ. I hope that if she does so, she'll do it with more care.

Let me conclude by saying that I do think some good will come of this book. Rice has a huge following, and I hope and pray that many who are far from Christ will read this book and become intrigued - perhaps even come to saving faith. But overall, I think that she has overstepped herself - putting too much trust in her own research and the praises she has heard from years of success, and not enough trust in the years of diligent study and prayer by the rest of the body of Christ.

11 Comments:

Blogger Devin Parker said...

I'm glad that you read this, Chris; thanks for giving us this overview of the book. I had felt similar apprehension about her decisions. While I respect the need for artistic license, when dealing with someone as significant as Jesus, I think that we as believers have a duty to represent Him as accurately as we are able. Case in point: even now, after years of being a Christian, I struggle with false ideas of who God is that have crept into my head for one reason or another, and these false perceptions and shadowy misunderstandings can easily lead to frustration with God. No one is claiming that Rice's novel is Gospel truth, but like The Da Vinci Code, even when couched in fiction, such ideas can affect a person's thinking. Idolatry - creating your own version of God - is an insidious sin, and I think I'm seeing right now how destructive it can be.

The Israelites were commanded not to create any graven images; my understanding of this is that they would be tempted to worship such things. I wonder if we, when depicting supernatural beings, anyone from angels to God Himself, are playing with fire in a spiritual sense.

As I've mentioned in my first post about Rice, while I admire and appreciate her desire to serve her God, to do so in this way so soon after her return to Him seems akin to publishing a theological treatise moments after first kneeling at the altar.

12/06/2005 6:20 AM  
Blogger Devin Parker said...

Perhaps this is a case in point. Thanks to Google's method of advertising, there is a link listed in the sidebar here leading to a website called "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" which makes this claim: "Jesus is imaginary. Prove to yourself that Jesus is imaginary and set yourself free."

I didn't read enough of the website to see if the author, Marshall Brain, actually claimed that Jesus did not, in fact, exist. If he did make that claim, I can safely take apologeticist J. P. Holding's advice and completely dismiss him (the Christ-myth claim flying in the face of evidence). However, I did read enough of his website to see that he makes fundamentally flawed claims that attack straw man arguments. These straw men seem to be born of his idea of who God is, and because of his flawed understanding of his Creator, he is understandably unwilling, and perhaps incapable, of bending his knee to God in this life. I can't say if his understanding has been influenced by popular culture or the arts, but it goes to show how easily we can get the wrong ideas about God. We certainly don't need any help in that department.

12/06/2005 6:39 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Great post and commentary. I was surprised to learn from this that Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? As many Catholics as I have known, and as long as I have been a Christian, I have never heard this! Very interesting. I realize that this may not be the place, but I'm too interested now...
What do Catholics do with Matthew 1:25?
"But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus."
I don't claim to be a master of literature, but that's seems pretty friggin' clear to me (no matter what translation you read).

12/06/2005 4:14 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Hey Matt - Dan could explain this much better than me, but I'll do my best to do justice to a paper he wrote on the subject.

Mostly, the argument is that the word "until" can be understood somewhat differently in the Greek. It can have a meaning that is along the lines of "up until, and then continuing after".

Suffice to say that a good argument can be made. I still have the paper Dan wrote if you want me to mail you a copy...

12/06/2005 9:14 PM  
Blogger Michael Slusser said...

I suppose that a Greek exigesis might help explain where the concept comes from, but my question would be this: why is it important? What bearing would it have on Christ or our faith?

I have many other questions along this vein, but I suppose I should wait until I've done more reading on the subject. Perhaps Dan would allow his paper to be posted, at least here in the comments, or on his own blog?

12/06/2005 9:24 PM  
Blogger Michael Slusser said...

Okay, so I got off my lazy butt and did some reading of my own.

There is some explanation here based on Talmudic scholarship, and here based on the patristic fathers and ancient documents.

It's an interesting sub-subject, I suppose, but these forums aren't really the place for theological debate, so I encourage you to read up and be informed on all the views presented. I would suggest (from the Protestant perspective) that this isn't a core issue of faith in Christ--as Chris said, arguments on either side are of interest, but perhaps not crucial.

Maybe we need a second blog...

12/06/2005 9:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Mike beat me to it. Ah well, I’ll post the little comment I was going to add anyway.

Here it is:

A response to the "perpetual virginity" issue from a Catholic commentary would probably be useless, as most of the readers here would probably be skeptical about it from the get-go.

So, here's what the Protestant Reformers had to say on the issue:

Calvin: "There have been certain folk who have suggested from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that Mary had other children than the Son of God and that Joseph had dwelt with her later, but what folly this is for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards. He simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her, nor had he shared her company. And this besides the Lord is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regards to precidences. Scripture speaks nothing of naming the firstborn whether or no there was any question of the second."

Calvin: "Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the Gospel says nothing. Certainly it is a matter about which no one will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious. On the contrary, there was never a man who would contradict this [The perpetual virginity of Mary] in obstinancy unless he were a pig-headed infatuous person."

Luther: "A virgin before the conception, in birth she remained a virgin, also at the birth, and after it."

Luther: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."

Zwingli: "I speak of this in the holy church of Zurich and in all my writings, I recognize Mary as ever-virgin and whole."


Matt:

I’ve never heard the translation of Matthew 1:25 that you used. Most of the translations I’ve heard say something along the lines of “he never knew her until the day of [The Lord’s] birth.”

Nevertheless, the argument I’ll make still applies.

The word “until” in the text of Matthew 1:25 has a specific meaning. It does not imply conduct after a given action occurs. It is used in several scripture passages (over 15) in which it clearly does not mean that the conduct changes after the given point.

Here are just two examples:

“And behold I am with you always until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:20) This does not mean that our Lord will cease to be with us after the end of the age.

“And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6:23). This certainly doesn’t mean that she had children after her death!

This whole discussion brings several thoughts to mind, and there are many things I’d like to say, but it’s late. Perhaps that is a sign that discretion is now my best course of action.

Let me just say, then, that any Catholic you’ve run into who did not hold that Mary was a perpetual virgin was completely ignorant of their faith, as this has been the teaching of the catholic church since the very early centuries.

12/06/2005 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, hey Chris!

I didn't notice you'd also posted. Wanted to acknowlege that.

Mike:

I read through the articles you linked to a bit. Very cool. I've never seen them. They do this topic far more justice than my paper did.

Matt:

Reading back through my response, I hope it didn't seem harsh. I didn't intend it to be.

12/06/2005 10:25 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

While I think it's really a bit silly to discuss Mary's sex life afte Christ's birth, I mean how theologically important is it that she remained virginal afterwards (is it really anybody's business), can we use some common sense for a moment? Is there any man present who would not have sex with his wife after the birth of a child when there was no law or rule or voice of God preventing it? As a woman I don't see why she wouldn't have. I mean, the stress alone, really.

Secondly, from Matthew Henry's Commentary: "Dr. Whitby inclines to think that when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born, it is intimated that, afterwards, the reason ceasing, he lived with her, according to the law."

Wouldn't the two of them live according to the law? Wouldn't they want an exemplary marriage covenant? As far as my understanding goes a covenant includes the shedding of blood (a.k.a. consummation).

But, it's not as important to me as it seems to be to others. I mean you can think whatever you want about Mary it will never change what actually happend either way.

Lastly:

"pig-headed infatuous person" Calvin, the man really needed a mirror.

And Luther, there's a man who knew nothing of child birth.

Old dead white guys, what a hoot!

12/07/2005 11:21 AM  
Blogger Michael Slusser said...

Okay, folks. We're losing focus here. The tone is occasionally getting a bit dismissive. There are all kinds of message boards out there for this sort of debate--hopefully we can keep things here on track to discuss the artistic merits of the work. Inasmuch as that touches on the theological it's fair game, but as soon as the topic turns entirely to exegesis apart from the topic at hand, it needs to move elsewhere.

I apologize for my part in bringing this about--I was curious and such ideas are well worth discussing. We just want to keep these topics from running off the rails.

Thanks, all.

12/07/2005 12:32 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Since I started it.... ;-)
Thanks to all who have posted comments regarding my question. This is a VERY interesting subject, if only because it is a new concept for me (trust me, I'm really not interested in the carnal aspects of the mother of Christ). I realize that the focus has digressed from the 'art' foundation of this blog, but again, I do appreciate the work and research that was done into the subject. I have learned quite a bit. I do have one more thing to say, and I am really fighting the temptation not to just go ahead and write it here. But! I will withhold my opinion for now and create an entirely separate post on my blog about it. So, be sure to check it out over the next couple of days. 12-21-05

12/21/2005 9:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home