Crook Z.- Fictionalizing Jesus, Story and History in Two Recent Jesus Novels (JSHJ 2007)

7/28/2019 Crook Z.- Fictionalizing Jesus, Story and History in Two Recent Jesus Novels (JSHJ 2007)

1/24

http://jhj.sagepub.com

Historical JesusJournal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/14768690060749352007; 5; 33Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Zeba CrookFictionalizing Jesus: Story and History in Two Recent Jesus Novels

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/1/33The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Historical JesusAdditional services and information for

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by Feliz Delgado on May 31, 2008http://jhj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/24

FICTIONALIZING JESUS:STORY AND HISTORY IN TWO RECENTJESUSNOVELS

Zeba Crook

Carleton University

Ottawa, ON, Canada

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

From canonical and extra-canonical gospels to the modern phenomenon of the

Jesus novel, people have been fictionalizing Jesus by filling in gaps in the histori-

cal and narrative record. This essay inaugurates a field of inquiry by contrasting

two recent novels, Norman Mailers The Gospel According to the Son (1997) and

Nino Riccis Testament(2002). In particular it examines how each of the novels

depicts the role and character of Judas Iscariot, the question of Jesus performance

of miracles, as well as how each novel depicts Jesus. In all, the remarkable histori-

cal plausibility of these novels, or parts of them, raises the very interesting issue

of the relationship between story and history, between fiction and history.

Key words: fiction, historical fiction, historical Jesus, historiography, Judas Iscariot,

miracles, non-canonical gospels

It takes no great effort to refute him: hes a historian.

(Seneca, Quaestiones Naturales 7.16)

Fiction about Jesus is as old as writing about Jesus; as long as people have been

transmitting Jesus stories, they have been fictionalizing Jesus. One can argue,though I will not do so here, about how much in the canonical gospels is fictional.

Though it is not usually expressed in this manner, the foundation of historical

Jesus scholarship, ultimately, seems to have been grounded in the wish to dis-

tinguish between fiction and non-fiction (history?) in the gospels. Regardless of

how pessimistic (or optimistic) one might be about the historicity of the canoni-

cal gospels, and there is no consensus here among Jesus scholars, there is much

less debate among them about how much in extra-canonical Christian writings

such as the Gospels of Thomas or Judasis fictional. Surely, much of it is. Either

way, the point is clear: it is not a question of whether or not early Christians fic-

tionalized Jesus, but rather to what extent our body of early Christian writings

about Jesus and company has been fictionalized.

Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus

Vol. 5.1 pp. 33-55

DOI: 10.1177/1476869006074935

2007 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA

and New Delhi

http://JSHJ.sagepub.com

http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/http://jhj.sagepub.com/


3/24

34 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

The last one hundred years has witnessed the rising popularity of another

genre of writing about Jesus: the Jesus novel.1 Jesus novels, to clarify, are fic-

tional accounts that are directly about Jesus: I would not count, for instance, clas-

sics such asBen Hur(1880) orBarabbas (1946) among Jesus novels, since they

are stories in which Jesus appears only as a secondary character. The designation

novel is intended to rule out short stories or novellas, such as D.H. Lawrences

97-page The Man Who Died(1931).2 Also, I would not count Christ figure

novels, which might focus on a solitary figure who sacrifices himself for the

good of the many, but are not about Jesus.3 Finally, I would not count novels

that import Jesus into modern times.4 In short, a Jesus novel must have Jesus as a

main character, must be set in first-century Palestine, and must be over 100 pages.

Beyond that, such a novel can be conservative in its recounting of the story5 or

liberally creative.6 Even with such seemingly narrow parameters, there are almost

300 Jesus novels in English.7

1. In fact, the Jesus novel arises more or less contemporaneously with the genre of the

novel itself in English literature. The genesis of the novel has been much debated and contested

by literary historians, but conventional definitions see the arrival of the novel in the eighteenth

century, with writers such as Daniel Defoe (Robinson Crusoe, 1719), Samuel Richardson

(Pamela, 1740), and Henry Fielding (Tom Jones, 1749). As far as I have been able to ascertain,

the first Jesus novel in English is J. Camerons The Messiah: In Nine Books (London: Robinsonand Roberts, 1770), demonstrating the nearly immediate interest in applying this novel form to

the gospel story.

2. No consensus exists on what precisely distinguishes a novel from a novella, but the

most commonly accepted figure is that a novel must be longer than about 50,000 words, and a

short story under about 20,000; between them resides the novella.

3. The Christ figure motif has been extremely popular in the novel tradition. Critics have

argued for the presence of Christ figures in, among many others, literary works as diverse as:

Kafkas Metamorphosis (1915), John Steinbecks Grapes of Wrath (1939), Graham Greenes

The Power and the Glory (1940), Albert Camuss The Stranger(1942), C.S. Lewiss Chronicles

of Narnia (195056), Ernest Hemingways The Old Man in the Sea (1952), William GoldingsLord of the Flies (1954), J.R.R. TolkeinsLord of the Rings (195455), and John IrvingsA

Prayer for Owen Meany (1989).

4. Willy Werby,J.C. in L.A. (San Francisco: Downwind Publications, 1994).

5. Marjorie Holmes, Three from Galilee: The Young Man from Nazareth (New York:

Harper & Row, 1985); Anne Rice, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt(New York: Alfred Knopf,

2005); Walter Wangerin Jr,Jesus: A Novel(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005); Bodie Thoene,

Fifth Seal(Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006).

6. Nikos Kazantzakis,The Last Temptation of Christ(trans.,New York: Simon & Schus-

ter, 1960); Robert Graves,King Jesus (London: Cassell and Co., 1946); Paul Park, The Gospel

of Corax (New York: Soho Press, 1996); Christopher Moore,Lamb: The Gospel According toBiff, Christs Childhood Pal(New York: W. Morrow, 2002).

7. Because there are too many novels to list here, I have created a page on my website

with a bibliography of the Jesus novels I have been able to discover thus far: http://www.

carleton.ca/~zcrook/JesusNovels.htm.



4/24

CrookFictionalizing Jesus 35

Intuitively, the Jesus novel and the gospel, regardless of the latters canonical

or extra-canonical status, are notcannot beinter-changeable. Surely gospel

writers did not see themselves as writing entirely fictional stories drawn from

their own creative imaginations. Lukes historical prologue, though unique in

gospel literature, can probably speak, at least in part, for the whole of the tradi-

tion. On the other hand, few Jesus novelists possess the hubris to imagine they

are writing authoritatively historical accounts of Jesus.8 And yet, post-modern

criticism of historiography has accomplished nothing if it has not destabilized

our understanding of categories like history and fiction. The influence of the

historian and cultural critic Hayden White cannot be underestimated in this

regard.

Whites observations that the phenomena of narrative significantly blur the

categories of history and fiction has spawned more than thirty years of work on

this historiographical question, from White and many others.9 The conundrum is

that narrative is what sets history apart from other forms of historical writing,

such as chronicles and annals, which tend simply to list events without offering

causal explanations, and which tend to terminate more than they conclude. In

other words, narrative is necessary to historical writing, because it seeks to fill

in the gaps that chronicles and annals leave open.10 Yet, as is widely recognized

now, it is the presence of narrative in historical writing that most undermines the

positivist position that the historian lets the evidence speak for itself. The storythat is, of necessity, in history means that it is more difficult than was once

thought to distinguish historical writing from fictional writing. If, as White has

suggested, building on the observations of R.G. Collingwood, the historical sen-

sibility [is] manifested in the capacity to make a plausible story out of a congeries

of facts which, in their unprocessed form, [make] no sense at all,11 then in

some respects there is little difference between history and a really good novel.

8. Based on the epilogue of her first Jesus novel, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt(New

York: Alfred Knopf, 2005) it is possible that Ann Rice does think she is doing nothing more thanputting into story form history wie es eigentlich gewesen, to borrow von Rankes famous phrase.

9. Hayden White, The Historical Text as Literary Artifact, Clio 3 (1974), pp. 277-303;

idem, The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory,History and Theory 23

(1984), pp. 1-33; idem, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical

Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); Ann Curthoys and John

Docker,Is History Fiction? (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005). This line of

inquiry has spread, in addition, to questions of history in fiction: Harry B. Henderson, Versions

of the Past: The Historical Imagination in American Fiction (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1974); David Cowart, History and the Contemporary Novel (Carbondale: Southern

Illinois University Press, 1989); Angus Easson (ed.),History and the Novel(Cambridge: D.S.Brewer, 1991); Mark C. Carnes (ed.),Novel History: Historians and Novelists Confront Ameri-

cas Past (and Each Other) (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001).

10. White, Content of the Form, p. 22.

11. Hayden White, Historical Text as Literary Artifact, p. 280.



5/24


While it might be the case that the work of the historian and the novelist

differ not in kind but in degree,12 it is not the case that we cannot distinguish

meaningfully between history and fiction; the way White does so is surely a use-

ful starting point. White borrows Lacanian terms when he suggests that history

belongs to a category that might be called a discourse of the real, while fiction

belongs to a category of a discourse of the imaginary.13 These formulations refer

to intent: regardless of whether it is possible for the historian to actually recon-

struct the past, doing so is surely what motivates her.14 The novelist on the other

hand is not trying to reconstruct the past, though she may well do so. Indeed,

David Cowart finds that the past is often less accessible to history than to his-

torical fiction.15 It goes without saying that categories such as true and false

are not helpful here, because one could well produce an imaginary discourse

about real events that may not be less true for being imaginary.16

This last warning applies as much to critics of gospel literature as of modern

fiction, though admittedly it is a thornier issue for the former category of writing.

New Testament scholars have long struggled with questions of the genre and

historiography of the gospels, and this debate is complicated by the recognition

that ancient historiography had different conventions than does modern histori-

ography. If terms such as historical and fictional are problematic for modern

historical works, they are no less so of ancient historical works. The gospels are

not history either in the ancient or modern senses of the word: the gospels areneither wholly discourses of the real, nor are they wholly discourses of the imagi-

nary.17 The gospels are, by all accounts, a peculiar blend of history and fiction.

With these theoretical caveats in mind, I would like in this article to begin an

examination of this combination of history and fiction in Jesus novels, and to

consider the relationship between the novel and the gospel. Both of these forms,

the gospels and the historical fictions based upon them, are deeply invested in

the questions of and tensions between history and fiction. White characterized

historical writing as seeking to fill in the gaps, which is where narrative enters

12. Avrom Fleishman, The English Historical Novel: Walter Scott to Virginia Woolf

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), p. 6.


14. These formulations are also better than another of Whites attempts, in which he

suggests that what distinguishes historical from fictional stories is first and foremost their

contents, rather than theirform. The content of historical stories is real events, events that

really happened, rather than imaginary events, events invented by the narrator (White, Ques-

tion of Narrative, p. 2; emphasis original). The problem, obviously, is that fiction can just as

easily be about events that really happened.15. Cowart,History and the Contemporary Novel, p. 1.


17. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (IIX) (New York: Doubleday,

1981), p. 16.



6/24


the historical process. What is interesting about the canonical gospels is actually

that they leave many gaps unfilled, and what is interesting about most sub-

sequent writingin the form of extra-canonical Christian literature and Jesus

novelsis the desire to fill in those gaps: Jesus teen years, his love-life, his

personality, his miracles, the true nature and meaning of his teachings. In addi-

tion, extra-canonical literature and Jesus novels share an interest in fleshing out

characters that are under-developed in the canonical gospels: Judas Iscariot,

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Joseph, the disciples, especially

Simon/Cephas/Peter, and even Jesus himself. Early Christian writers were no

less interested in filling in the gaps from the Jesus story, or with interpreting the

man and the message, than modern writers of Jesus novels. The two novels I

shall compare in this paper are Norman Mailers The Gospel According to the

Son (New York: Ballantyne Books, 1997) and Nino Riccis Testament(Toronto:

Anchor Canada, 2002). I have selected these two novels because both are by

literary writers, as opposed to writers of popular Christian fiction. Since I am in

part interested in this phenomenon in relation to the rise of the secular novel, this

is an important point. Also, the two books are comparable, in that they cover the

entirety of Jesus life, whereas others might cover only Jesus younger years, the

trial, or the Passion. Finally, unlike other books that are overly creative (say, in

having Jesus travel to India), these two novels are much more historically con-

servative. In other words, these two novels offer a happy medium between thewoodenly conservative and the wildly creative accounts of Jesus life.

Norman Mailer, The Gospel According to the Son

Norman Mailers The Gospel According to the Son tells its story in 49 short

chapters. What is immediately striking about Mailers novel is that it is told in

the first person by Jesus. Mailers novel combines meta-narrative and meta-

history: throughout, Mailers Jesus is aware of, is unhappy with, and seeks tocorrect the accounts of the canonical gospels. The New Testament gospels are

depicted as well-intentioned but flawed, and he laments that the gospel writers

have exaggerated much (p. 3). Jesus corrections can be both jarring and humor-

ous. For example, Jesus complains that Matthews Sermon on the Mount is so

long it seemingly has him speak all day and all night. In the end, Jesus laments

that the exaggerations show a lack of faith on the part of the gospel writers, for

true faith would have let the story stand as it happened. The narrative that

Mailers Jesus offers raises the question of fiction versus history, and thus is

also meta-historical.Mailers Jesus tells the story of his life in a more or less linear narrative,

following, for the most part, the gospel narrative and content. In some ways, this

novel is a very conservative telling of the story: the story ends up harmonizing



7/24


all four gospels, and in some instances explains away differences among them.

For instance, he has Jesus preach in Nazareth at the start of his mission (with

Lk. 4), but also again later in his mission (with Mt. 13 and Mk 6). Also, on a few

occasions he fills in some of the narrative gaps in the gospels in an interesting

manner, but far less often than he might have.

Mailers narrative follows the gospel outline quite carefully: birth, John the

Baptist, temptation, mission, healings, conflict, trip to Jerusalem, temple scene,

Passover supper, arrest, execution, and resurrection, with many of the smaller

events where you would expect them. Nonetheless, there are a few topics on

which Mailer creates interesting narrative details around traditional gospel

elements.

Mailers Jesus clashes with his mother. After Jesus has been baptized and

tempted by Satan, he decides he must emulate Johns preaching; he and his

mother then clash for the first time. She fears for Jesus life, and wants him to

choose the life of the Essene ascetic in a desert community. That would be safe

and would keep Jesus out of trouble. Jesus cannot understand why Mary would

want that for him. He thinks of her as modest, but also vain, with a stone will.

She sees herself as weak, and what is worse, she also sees Jesus that way. It

makes him angry that she has so little confidence in him. In the end, Jesus

resents her for making his way more difficult.

When Mailers Jesus calls his disciples while walking along the Sea ofGalilee, the narrative follows not only the gospel text, but also the gospel style:

Mailer never explains what Jesus was doing walking along the sea, how long

had passed since the failed sermon in Nazareth, nor whether Simon and Andrew

wondered what it meant to be a fisher of men. From here, Jesus embarks on a

mission that involves curing people on the Sabbath, something that will make

him popular among the poor and unpopular among the more tradition-sensitive

elites.

Some time later, Jesus mother and a couple of his brothers call on him in

Capernaum. Initially Jesus claims he did not hear them at the gate. But he is notimpressed when he hears his mother claiming that Jesus healing on the Sabbath

is evidence that he must be full of devils. Thus, when Jesus is told his family are

present, he replies Who is my mother? Later, Jesus learns that his mother wept

when these words were repeated to her, and Jesus seriously regrets hurting her

feelings. He wishes several times he could take those words back.

Public opposition to Jesus slowly mounts, and with it his anger. At first Jesus

comes preaching peace, but he soon learns, and is told by God, that his mission

will ultimately lead to battles with his own people: he comes to bring not peace

but a sword. When Jesus ends up in Jerusalem, and he causes the scene at theTemple, he attracts the attention of the elites.

Sometimes Jesus is criticized unfairly by the elites, but sometimes the criti-

cism is thoughtful. This is an interesting touch on Mailers part. For example,



8/24


one gentle scribe reminds Jesus that with so many Jews having died struggling

to observe the law when foreign rulers made it illegal to do so, it only stands to

reason that many people would be offended by his lax attitude to the law. His

implication that somehow the law has a secondary importance to other princi-

ples, in this case mercy, reflects a disregard for the martyrs. Jesus tries to say that

he has not come to end the law but to fulfil it, but his correction is not heard.

In another interesting exchange, a kind elder praises Jesus act in the

Temple, but he wants Jesus to understand that Satan can also use his powers to

do good, so just because one claims to do good does not rule out the influence of

Satan. Jesus replies that the mans words are so carefully crafted that he too

could be speaking for the devil. The scene is a useful reminder of the rhetoric of

evil. People direct this charge at anyone with whom they disagree: Jesus makes

it of the elites, and the elites of Jesus. In a way, it breaks down into a childish

You speak for the devil. No, you do. No you. You.

Also of note, at the trial during which Pilate asks whom he should free and

what is to be done with Jesus, there are only elites present: elders of the temple,

rich townspeople, scribes, Pharisees, and the priests. It is they, not the Jews of

Jerusalem, who ask for Barabbas to be freed and for the execution of Jesus.

Perhaps this serves to make sense of the gospels in which support for Jesus

among the people is so high in one chapter and they are calling for his execution

in the next.

In all, then, Mailers novel follows very closely a harmonized narrative of

the canonical gospels, veering from them very occasionally but in interesting

ways when he does so.

Nino Ricci, Testament

Nino Riccis Testament is a novel in four chapters, each written in the first

person from the perspective of an eye witness: Yihuda of Qiryat, Miryam of

Migdal, Miryam the mother of Jesus, and an unfamiliar character, a Gentilenamed Simon of Gergesa. Unlike Mailer, Ricci takes this familiar story and

makes it foreign. He does this first and foremost by using the Aramaic forms of

all the personal and place names when the witness is of Aramaic descent. This

makes the names and places unfamiliar, and serves to distance the reader from

the familiar story. I must admit to it taking me some time before realizing that

Yihuda of Qiryat was Judas Iscariot. The other names are easier to understand,

but effective nonetheless: Jesus is Yeshua, James is Yaqob, Mary Magdalene is

Miryam of Migdal, Simon is Shimon, Capernaum is Kephar Nahum, and Nazar-

eth is Notzerah. This is carried through all the chapters until the final one, which,because it is written by a Gentile, suddenly becomes familiar again: Jesus, Mary,

Nazareth, and so on. The effect illustrates to the reader that the Jesus movement,

in its current incarnation (Christianity), is a Gentile organization now.



9/24


The novel makes this story unfamiliar also in its structure. Because each

writer is an eyewitness, each story begins from the point at which she or he

encounters Jesus: Yihudas story begins after the arrest of John the Baptist;

Miryam of Migdals story begins when her father invites Jesus to supper, also

after the arrest of John; Miryam the mother of Jesus begins her story, appro-

priately enough, with the conception of Jesus; and Simon of Gergesa begins his

testimony when Jesus starts travelling into the Decapolis, which is well into his

ministry. In the end, we get the whole story, from conception to empty tomb,

but the reader must reconstruct it to form a continuous narrative.

This first person narrative also means that each writer cannot report on

anything she or he did not see, or when they do so they know it is rumour.

Indeed, rumour plays a central role in this portrayal of Jesus: rumours that are

more extreme than reality will serve to make Jesus more attractive to the poor

andmore of a threat to the elites, and those who tell the stories see first-hand

how the stories, both good and bad, get out of hand.

The novel opens, then, in En Melakh with Yihuda of Qiryat encountering

Yeshua who has appeared out of the desert. Judas and Jesus bond when they

care for a revolutionary killed by a Roman soldier, and later when they meet

again in Tyre, Judas will join the group, partly because he is attracted by Jesus,

and partly because he fears the Romans are looking for him. Judas and Jesus

enjoy a close relationship that slowly becomes strained. Judas relates havingdebates with Jesus, and to being impressed with what he comes to learn. He sees

Jesus as a teacher and a healer who is not afraid to stand up for the non-elite.

Judas testimony ends when he is found by members of his revolutionary group,

and summoned back to Jerusalem.

Mary Magdalenes testimony makes up the second chapter. She first meets

Jesus when her father invites him home for dinner. Jesus asks Mary to join his

group, and it becomes a constant source of strife for, and within, the group that

single women are prominent in the group. Though Mary knows Jesus is not the

marrying kind, she will never fully let go of the romantic feelings she harboursfor him. A good deal of her story reveals her own pride and selfishness, as she

frequently laments that the group is changing as it grows, and that Jesus himself

is becoming harder to understand, and more volatile. Her testimony closes when

Jesus and the group, including her, begin their trip to Jerusalem for Passover.18

The testimony of Mary the mother of Jesus begins with her rape at the hands

of a Roman centurion and her marriage to an older man in search of a fertile

bride. They end up fleeing to Egypt not because of Herod but because of another

18. It is difficult to see the logic behind how this chapter ends: the other chapters begin

with their earliest recollection of Jesus and close when Jesus drops from their sight, or they

leave the group. But we find out later that Mary Magdalene is with the group right to the end.



10/24


11/24


12/24


it is too late; he knows immediately that he has lost Judas, since in his simple

rebuke Jesus forsakes the poor. Jesus knows that he is obliged to forgive Judas

for leaving him.

Later, when Jesus hears that Judas has hanged himself, he cannot compre-

hend why. Indeed, within the context of Mailers narrative, neither can I. While

Mailers conversations between Jesus and Judas explain the (presumably) his-

torical events nicely, they do not make sense of Judas suicide. Judas is a man of

unwavering principle, and Jesus forsakes the poor: whence the grief that leads to

a suicide? On the other hand, the gospel narratives at least have inner consis-

tency on this point: Judas is money hungry and dishonest, and when he hands

over Jesus for a small sum of money, his guilt and suicide make sense.

Nino Ricci has been even more creative with his character of Judas, but there

are interesting overlaps. Judas own testimony opens the novel, and we read

more about him in the testimonies of Miryam of Migdal and Simon of Gergesa.

Mary Magdalenes testimony echoes that of traditional Christianity; Simons

testimony is neutral, but reflects Judas own testimony. In the end, we find that

Judas Iscariot has been misunderstood and maligned by the other followers of

Jesus, a situation not helped by his acidic personality.

Judas is a revolutionary of some sort, but we are never told what group he

follows; through the narrative we piece together that he is not a Zealot (he

despises them) nor a Sicarii (his dagger is not curved). Judas eventually learnsthat Jesus does not share his hatred of the Romans, but Jesus continual refer-

ence to a Kingdom of Heaven confuses Judas many times over. While Judas

association with revolutionary groups is a source of tension between him and

Jesus, both figures are equally drawn to the other. When Judas eventually

decides to join the group in Tyre, in part as a way of hiding from the Romans,

Jesus makes him a disciple. Judas returns with the group to Kephar Nahum.

Judas is angry with the Romans and with Jews who cooperate with them,

and he is orthodox in his observance. He frequently debates with Jesus about the

Romans, whom Jesus refuses to reject, and about all manner of Jesus unortho-dox actions. Judas will be especially troubled by Jesus touching of lepers and

his cavorting with women. But while Judas misunderstands Jesus motives, he

argues with Jesus on these issues because he does not wish Jesus to open him-

self to cheap criticism. He knows what people are saying about Jesus, he knows

the enemies these actions are gaining for him, and he wishes Jesus to stay out of

trouble. But in the end, Jesus makes special efforts to show Judas his point, and

Judas comes to be persuaded.

We learn that Judas is deeply troubled by, and yet attracted to, the message

of Jesus. It offends his deeply held conviction that the Romans are enemies. Andyet, in the end, when his rebel group has recalled him and asked him to pressure

Jesus into coming to Jerusalem because they believe he will spark the final

revolution, Judas finally comes to see the meaninglessness of their struggle. He



13/24


knows that the Romans will either crush them instantly or eventually, and recog-

nizes for the first time that many innocent bystanders, who do not care about this

particular organization or about resisting the Romans, would be killed in any

attempt at revolt. Judas realizes that Jews are no worse under Roman tyranny

than they were under Jewish tyranny. He finally understands that Jesus is the

only one who is actually preaching a different way of looking at the world.

The testimonies of Mary Magdalene and Simon of Gergesa give us other

perspectives of Judas. Mary first meets Judas when Jesus returns from Tyre with

him. Right from the start, Mary is suspicious of him, and outraged that this

stranger and newcomer has been made a disciple. Rather than assume Jesus has

called Judas, like the others, she is convinced Judas has insinuated himself in the

group as ifhe were one of them. But his look, his dress, his vocabulary, and the

way he addresses Jesus set him apart from the others. She is consistently cold

and rude with Judas; once he has left the group, she comes to realize that her

dislike of Judas extended from the fact that he made them all look like children

because he was able to engage Jesus intellectually in a way they were unable to.

She realizes that they disliked him because of their own feelings of inadequacy.

The nature of Riccis overlapping narratives allows him to present some of

the same events from different perspectives. This occurs on the issue of Judas

carrying the common purse. From his perspective, it was clear that the other

members of the group eschewed coinage, and since he had no concerns withmoney, he finds that eventually it was left to him to carry the common purse.

Mary, on the other hand, is certain that his coming to carry the common purse

was part of his desire to gain greater control and influence over the group. She is

so convinced of this that at one point, when Judas leaves the group abruptly but

temporarily, Mary is surprised when she finds he did not take all their money

with him; it does not occur to her that maybe she misinterpreted Judas carrying

of the purse. Likewise, Judas relates that the youthful John had taken a special

liking to him; Mary interprets this as the worldly Judas taking advantage of the

nave young Galilean. And finally, where Judas asks questions because he isconcerned about the reputation of the group (and because he is a newcomer),

Mary sees him sowing dissension in the group by raising long-settled issues

(such as the presence of the women).

In Simon of Gergesas testimony, he encounters Judas for the first time on

his quest to catch up to Jesus group on the way to Jerusalem for Passover. He

sees Judas as wary to the point of being rude. He lacks the social graces of

small-talk as he leads Simon to Jesus. Simon can tell there is a history between

Judas and Jesus, but he does not know what it is. He can also see the other

followers of Jesus stiffen at the arrival of Judas. Simon relates that Judas keepstrying to gain a private audience with Jesus, but that Jesus keeps putting him off.

In the end, Simon spies on the two early one morning. He sees Judas warning

Jesus to stay away from Jerusalem because there is going to be violence, but to



14/24


Jesus this only makes his message of peace all the more important. Judas, who

has by now put himself into considerable danger by betraying his group of

rebels, disappears from the narrative.

The last thing we hear about Judas is that it is his association with the group

that makes trouble with the Romans. In Jerusalem, Jesus is arrested, and while

the Jewish authorities find no fault with him, the Roman authorities, eager to find

a way to prove they squashed a revolt, execute Jesus because of his association

with Judas. Thus, Simon relates, Judas would come to be blamed for the death of

Jesus when in fact he had nothing to do with it. Since we know the group already

holds him in such low regard, they will have no trouble blaming Judas.

The portraits of Judas presented by Mailer and Ricci share some interesting

features. First of all, Judas is an independent thinker in both novels. Whereas the

disciples fawn over Jesus, seek not to upset him, and rarely challenge him, in

both novels Judas argues and disagrees with Jesus. Secondly, whereas the other

disciples look up to Jesus, unquestioningly accepting his authority, Judas looks

across at him, seeing him as an equal. Both men are educated and worldly, and

neither is fooled by the others limitations. Finally, both novels seek to nuance

the gospel portrait of Judas. Mailer does not exonerate Judas, but he does make

his actions understandable and even defensible. Ricci, conversely, completely

exonerates Judas of blame in the death of Jesus, even while at the same time

making him a quite unlikable character.What is most fascinating about this interest in fictionalizing Judas is how old

it is. For obvious reasons, the Judas narrative invites many questions. Readers of

the gospels are not only compelled to wonder what drove Judas to hand over

Jesus, but Christian readers are further compelled to wonder what would have

happened had he notdone so. After all, without the death of Jesus there can be

no resurrection and no salvation for his followers. Judas is, therefore, an integral

part of salvation history, and yet he has been so vilified, if not self-evidently by

the gospel writers then certainly by later Christian writers. And yet, other Chris-

tians in the earliest period were also interested in this puzzle, as the newly dis-covered Gospel of Judas attests. From my perspective, what the Gospel of Judas

says about Jesus and Judas, and the question of whether any of it is reliable, is

far less interesting that what it tells us about some early Christians: that they too

were trying to make sense of the narrative by fictionalizing it. Mailers and

Riccis portraits of Judas stand in a very long line of tradition indeed.

Miracles

Few issues embody the tension between history and fiction more than the ques-

tion of miracles. As such, this has been and remains one of the most troubling

issues of interest for historical Jesus scholars and modern Christians alike. In a



15/24


post-enlightenment setting, many people simply cannot accept the depiction of

miracles in the gospels. It necessarily raises the question of whether the gospel

accounts of the miracles are historical or fictional or something in between. It

will be interesting to look, therefore, at how these two modern authors have

handled the issue of Jesus miracles.

Mailers depiction of miracles is definitely the more orthodox of the two.

Mailers Jesus is very much in line with the gospel portraits: his first act is to

turn water into wine at a wedding in Cana; he heals Peters mother-in-law; he

cures all manner of ailments, from withered hands to leprosy; he raises people

and is himself raised from the dead. And yet, there are two interesting aspects to

Mailers treatment of the miracles. First, Mailer depicts a gradual increase in

Jesus power, and his awareness of his power. Jesus is surprised by his new

found abilities, and he is not always certain his attempt at a healing will succeed.

Secondly, effecting miracles really drains Jesus; it does not appear to come

easily to him, and certainly not without a cost. The first time he cures a leper, he

asks him not to tell anyone (Mk 1.45). Mailer does not make Jesus appear secre-

tive, however; Jesus thinks this healing was too impressive, and he does not

want word spreading about it. It also leaves Jesus completely drained. Likewise,

when Jesus cures the hemorrhaging woman on his way to raising Jairus daugh-

ter (Mk 9), the back-to-back miracles leaves him emotionally and physically

exhausted. In this context, having to take two attempts to heal the blind manfrom Bethsaida (Mk 8) is fully consistent with Jesus developing talents in this

novel.

The only time Mailers Jesus corrects a gospel account of a miracle concerns

the feeding of the 5000 (Mt. 13; Mk 6; Lk. 9). In the novel, this occurs because

people have followed Jesus out into the wilderness where he has delivered the

Sermon on the Mount, and so at the end of the day they are far from home and

hungry. When Jesus learns that all they have with them is five barley loaves and

two dried fish, he takes them himself and tears them into the tiniest of morsels,

so that each person can have one tiny piece of each. There is no miraculousproduction of food, much less of surplus (Mt. 13.20; Mk 6.43; Lk. 9.17). And

yet, despite receiving such tiny morsels of food, all are satisfied by what they

received. This, according to Jesus, was the miracle, not that people gorged

themselves on miraculously produced food, but that they were sated by so little.

Mailer, then, presents the miracles much as the gospels present them, with a

few interesting developments of his own. Riccis portrait of the miracles is sig-

nificantly different. Ricci is somewhat ambiguous about miracles. Judas sees

Jesus as a doctor: he heals people by properly perceiving what ails them and

either curing the person or comforting and accepting him or her if the sufferingcannot be cured. So, for instance, in Tyre a woman brings her daughter of nine

or ten, who is mumbling and hysterical, to Jesus. Jesus washes her face, paying

close attention to what he sees, feeds and ultimately calms her. When the woman



16/24


asks Jesus whether it is a demon, Jesus replies straightforwardly The girl is

pregnant. When you find whos responsible, youll have your demon (p. 29).

Judas sees what happened with his own eyes, and yet later hears the same story

told in much exaggerated tones. Indeed, Mary Magdalene will observe that it is

the opponents of Jesus who spread rumours of greatly exaggerated miracles that

Jesus has done as a way of making his life more difficult. But at the same time,

Mary Magdalene feels she has witnessed miracles, just on a somewhat smaller

scale than their opponents are claiming.

Likewise, Simon of Gergesa sees that stories of Jesus good deeds became

very exaggerated after his death: if he had lanced a boil it turned out he had

saved a whole town; if there were 50 people present at a feeding, it became 500.

After the crucifixion of Jesus, Simon sits at Jesus tomb long enough to see some

people bribe the guards for one of the bodies in it; he presumes it is the body of

one of the criminals, because he does not recognize the people. But it was dark

in the tomb: he wonders if they are certain they took the right corpse. When he

returns to the Galilee, however, he hears that Jesus followers are claiming that

Jesus walked right out of the tomb because the body was missing the next

morning. Simon laments that in such exaggerated stories so much is lost of

Jesus teachings and vision.

In a humorous touch, two miracle stories from the gospels turn out to be the

result of Simons and Jerubals practical jokes. At one point, Jerubal and Simonare talking to lepers in a colony over the fence, and Jerubal, who has not yet

even met Jesus, tells them that he heard Jesus once cured a blind man in two

attempts, and that after the first attempt the man only sees people who look like

trees walking around. This is fascinating, because this story is reflected only in

Mark (Mk 8.22-26); is Ricci suggesting that the reason Mt. and Lk. rejected the

story was not its troubling theology, as is commonly thought, but because it was

not from a reliable source? Jerubal is behind another so-called miracle: on the

trek to Jerusalem, some people have fallen ill and Jesus suspects their fish must

be a little off, so he has them dump it. But Jerubal and Simon sneak away fromthe group, collect the fish, and return to a town they had just passed by. Jerubal

claims that he and Simon were luckless fishers whom Jesus had told to cast their

nets in and they came up with more than they knew what to do with. He sells all

the fish to the nave villagers under the ruse that it was the product of a miracle.

Again, a story made up by a con-man that has made its way into the gospels.

Jerubal knows the secret: the bigger the lie, the more people will fall for it.

And yet, Ricci does not entirely rule out that mysterious things were actually

happening, and he acknowledges that perception has a good deal to do with it.

Two episodes illustrate this. First, Judas, who like Jesus is educated and intelli-gent, sees Jesus walking out along the breakwater which sat low at that time

because of the rains, so that he seemed to hover on the surface of the lake (p. 96).

While Ricci reveals that Judas has an educated and critical eye, it seems he



17/24


leaves open the possibility that what Judas sees really are miracles, Jesus walk-

ing on water, but that Judas rational mind decides there must be a breakwater

beneath him that he cannot see because of the rains.

Secondly, during the Passover preparations in Jerusalem, a cousin of Peter,

named Elazar, is clubbed in the head by a Roman soldier during a scuffle at the

Temple. Jesus is called that night to heal him, and Simon of Gergesa relates the

story. He describes Jesus, in the light of the fire, looking intently at the mans

head, feeling all around it, as if he were searching for a way in. Then it looks as

if Jesus reaches right into the mans head, making it spurt out something that

Jesus throws into the fire: surely it is a demon! We already know from Jesus

mothers story that Jesus learned medical techniques on the streets of Alexandria

and that it is some symptom of the trauma that he has released from Elazars

head, but to these people it looks as if he has raised the man from death. Even

though Jesus tells them himself that it is nothing more than medicine, they think

he is being modest. As Elazar recovers, Jesus asks him, Do you know who I

am? and Elazar replies, You must be the son of god himself, if you brought me

back from the dead (p. 402). In the narrative, everyone laughs long and hard at

that response, including Jesus. What Ricci does with this story is particularly

complex: he lets us know that Jesus was a doctor, and that there are probably

reasonable explanations for the healings, but at the same time he makes clear that

to the general observer, these things are miraculous, even as modern science canappear miraculous to those who do not understand how something works (as

occurs when Mary the mother of Jesus describes a medical procedure she wit-

nesses at the harbour of Alexandria, p. 254). In the firelight, it seems that Ricci

leaves open the possibility that something miraculous did happen: it certainly

cannot be said that he rules it out.

Mailer, then, presents the miracles much as the gospels have them: he was a

healer who God enabled to perform miraculous healings. The most Mailer does

with miracles is to claim that Jesus had to learn how to perform miracles, and

had to become strong enough to do so. Ricci is more ambiguous, allowing bothfor the possibility of miracles, but also for the possibility that miracles have been

constructed out of non-miraculous events by rumour, polemic, perception, or

misunderstanding. With Judas he allows that a rational explanation could have

been the result of a lack of faith.

Depiction of Jesus

As one might expect by now, Mailers depiction of Jesus is fairly straight-forward, but with some interesting aspects. Mailer draws out, more so than the

gospels in my opinion, Jesus anger, which increases over his career. His anger

is always directed at the elite, and always concerns what he sees as their



18/24


hypocritical piety. They lead their cattle to water on the Sabbath so they do not

die, yet they criticize Jesus for ending the suffering of a fellow human on the

Sabbath. At first Jesus simply points it out, but as his mission progresses, and as

he learns that his Sabbath healings form the foundation of opposition to him, he

becomes angrier. Then he starts to recognize the pattern: the literalistic piety of

the elites is always exacted at the expense of the powerless. They punish people

simply for the sake of doing so, it seems to Jesus, whereas he seeks out ways to

help people.

And yet, Jesus is not the only position that is treated with some sympathy.

While some opponents of Jesus are made to look hypocritical, the more reasoned

opposition of others is presented sympathetically. In the novel, Jesus can appear

overly demanding and dogmatic. He is simply unwilling to admit that perhapssome of his opponents have a point. So, Jesus response to the reasonable obser-

vation that his actions are seen by many as disrespectful of a long history of

martyrs is simply to reject it. It does not occur to him to modify his approach at

all.

Perhaps along the same lines, Mailers Jesus frequently speaks without think-

ing first. He spends much of his mission regretting his suggestion that Mary is

no longer his mother, but rather anyone who does the will of God. He curses the

fig tree because he is hungry, but even in the moment before his death he still

thinks back to how wrong he was to curse the roots of another living thing.When Jesus says, Destroy this Temple. In three days I will raise it up (p. 156),

he thinks Now I had to wonder at what I had said. A folly! (p. 156). He regrets

this outburst as soon as he makes it, and so turns to his disciples and tells them

to respect the Temple, that the money-lenders in it are filth that can be cleaned

out. Of course it is too late. Consistent with the gospels, this statement gets Jesus

in trouble.

Finally, Mailers Jesus doubts himself, and his faith is never enough. Nothing

in his mission appears to move him more than the man who tells him, Lord, I

believe. Help me in my disbelief (p. 110; Mk 9.24). He sees so much of himselfin this saying: of course he of all people believes in God, and yet he is consis-

tently reminded of his own lack of faith. He wonders how he can expect his dis-

ciples to believe without reservation when even he cannot attain such unreserved

faith. Often when he says something that seems particularly fantastic to him, he

expresses the hope that he is telling the truth, or that what he says will actually

happen. After he tells the disciples that the son of man will return in a cloud with

power and glory he says to himself Oh, Lord, let my words be true (p. 188).

Before he heals the man who was blind from birth (Jn 9), he sees the enormity

of what he is seeking to accomplish. The man does not even have eyes to fix,

just empty sockets. Jesus precedes his work with the words I believe, I said

to my Father. Now help my unbelief (p. 183).



19/24


Mailer gives Jesus an interesting combination of human and divine charac-

teristics: he performs miracles, yet not all that the gospels accord to him, and not

all in as grand a way; he performs miracles, but he has to learn how, and increase

his strength to do them; and he performs miracles but he lacks faith in a char-

acteristically human way (as do his disciples). Mailers Jesus is a divine being

who has to learn how to become one. He often recognizes that his conduct is not

fitting of the son of God, but he is sometimes uncertain what to do, or, as seen

above, he speaks without thinking through what he is about to say.

Answering this question with respect to Riccis novel is much more com-

plex, but it can be said almost without reservation that Riccis Jesus is thor-

oughly human. Saying more than that of Riccis Jesus, however, is almost as

complex as distilling a single portrait of Jesus from the four canonical gospels,

since like the New Testament, Ricci offers four competing portraits of Jesus. In

truth, while there are overlaps, we need to consider each of the four portraits of

Jesus in Riccis novel as well.

Judas Jesus is complex and hard to understand. At first glance, Judas sees

Jesus as a doctor who puts people before legal restrictions: he heals on the

Sabbath; he heals lepers; he heals menstruating women. Judas, admittedly, is as

troubled by as he is attracted to these acts, but in the end he understands their

importance. Judas sees that this is Jesus Kingdom of God: a place of Jesus cre-

ation here on Earth in which the poor and dispossessed are treated differently,and the elite do not rule ruthlessly. But it is in this that Judas realizes that the

healings are not the message, they are the medium. The healing activities are a

manifestation of what Jesus is teaching about human interaction.

Judas primary portrait of Jesus, then, is as a teacher, but as one who is

becoming frustrated: because he has been healing people as a way of expressing

a new message, the healings are starting to distract from the message. So Jesus

begins to avoid the crowds, but the more reclusive he is the more his reputation

as a powerful healer rises. All he wants to do is share some of his plain truths

(p. 93), to engage in intellectual debates and discussions, and ultimately winpeople over to his view of things. For instance, when a crippled but sceptical

man comes to Jesus by lowering himself from Peters roof into the courtyard

where Jesus is teaching (Mk 2), Jesus tells him he is right to be sceptical, and

that only God has the power to heal. When asked why then he allows such lies

to be spread about him, Jesus disingenuously claims that he cannot control

what people say (p. 92), but the crippled man and Judas both see the truth: by

speaking vaguely and taking no action to correct peoples perception of him,

Jesus actively invites people to misunderstand him.

So, if Judas Jesus is a teacher, he is not the most effective one, for whilesometimes Judas can be moved by Jesus frank speech, at other times he is frus-

trated by Jesus moodiness, and the opacity and inconsistency of his teaching.

Jesus is prone to lashing out at his disciples for asking stupid questions (Mk 9.19).



20/24


As his mission gains greater opposition from towns and leaders, Jesus becomes

increasingly tense and difficult to be around. Jesus tells his followers he will not

be going to Jerusalem for Passover, then he goes in secret with a few disciples

(Jn 7.10); he enters the city in disguise so as not to be recognized, but then he

becomes involved in protracted and public disputes at the Temple. What is more,

Judas, being educated himself, can tell that often Jesus is being deliberately

opaque in his answers to people, typical of someone who is unsure how to explain

something. He appears to foster misunderstanding about himself. He speaks in

riddles and parables that are difficult to understand, and seems to revel in people

not understanding, and yet this is not entirely so, because his bad moods will

often be exacerbated by people misunderstanding him. But rather than explain

clearly, Jesus becomes frustrated and walks away, blaming their hardness of

heart. And finally, Judas is troubled by how Jesus criticizes the elite in the

morning, and then dines with them in the evenings, seeming quite to enjoy their

hospitality. Judas tells Jesus angrily, in Simon of Gergesas recollection, I dont

know how you expect your fishermen to understand you, when the people you

criticize in daylight are the ones you whore for at night (p. 381).

Some of the moodiness and inconsistency of Judas portrait of Jesus is also

evident in Mary Magdalenes. Jesus at first encourages his students to challenge

him, so that he can fix their misunderstanding. But when they do, he becomes

angry and frustrated with them. It will actually result in Mary leaving the groupfor a short while, until Jesus comes and apologizes to her. But from the start,

Mary Magdalene sees Jesus as a teacher who sees the truth around him and who

speaks bluntly and challenges others to see that same truth. Nonetheless, she

will admit at the end of her testimony that Jesus memory was too fleeting to

remember exactly what he did and said. He was a teacher, but what exactly he

taught will be lost in the winds of rumour and exaggeration, whether friendly or

hostile.

The portrait Jesus mother presents of him is also interesting. Jesus is preco-

cious and proud as a child. He bristles against Marys authority as his mother,and leaves home for the first time at eight years old; he will come and go after

that as he pleases. Though Mary takes much of the blame for this, she sees that

Jesus never seemed to feel he had the family at home that he had on the streets

of Alexandria, and again later among the simple people of the Galilee. Mary is

deeply troubled by the few glimpses she gains of Jesus preaching in the Galilee.

Here is this Jesus who apparently cares about strangers in a way he does not

even care about his own family. Jesus cares for people he does not know,

whether in the form of healing them (lepers and demoniacs) or protecting them

from harm (the adulterous woman), and yet he does not seem to care for his ownfamily: he refuses to see them when they seek him out in Capernaum; he teaches

you are not to bury your father or mother; he teaches you must hate them. In one

of the most poignant lines of the novel, Mary laments For my part, I too was



21/24


surprised at the arguments he made, not because of their wisdom, since I knew

the acuity of his mind, but because he had attached himself to the cause of a

stranger and shown compassion for her when he showed none at home

[Y]ears later I heard how he preached forgiveness and lovethough I had never

known these things from him (p. 280).

Finally, Simon of Gergesas portrait of Jesus is as a teacher, but lacking

much of the moodiness of the other portraits, likely because he had far less

familiarity with him. He has seen him teach on the shores of the Sea of Galilee,

and he sees a truth in what he says. But he sees also a man who seems destined to

be misunderstood. For instance, when the troupe arrives in Jerusalem for Pass-

over, it has snowed heavily. The jokester Jerubal suggests they build rounded

houses out of snow (igloos?!). Jesus helps, and then makes a joke that it took

Herod 40 years to make his temple yet he (Jesus) made his in an hour. This will

later haunt him; two days after this someone at the Temple recognizes Jesus as

the one who built the snow huts, and someone else recalls the joke about building

his own temple; someone else takes offence, and in a minute there is an argument

and the hyper-vigilant Romans come in arresting people. This is the event that

leads to Jesus being arrested and ultimately executed. Simon sees that it was all

a misunderstanding, and that the Romans are hungry to make some executions.

They are not interested in hearing the consistent testimony that Jesus did not

have any revolutionary aspirations.All of Riccis gospels, then, agree in their presentation of Jesus as a moody

teacher, and many of them see the inconsistencies in his teaching. Another con-

sistent motif we see is the power of rumour. Jesus enemies andhis followers

equally spread rumours about him, and both contribute to his downfall. Through-

out the novel we see how the memory of events develop and change, how they

become more and more impressive, or conversely, more and more diabolical.

But none of the rumours are completely fabricated; they are all elaborations or

misunderstandings of real events. The effect of Riccis novel is brilliant: it shows

how an extraordinary but thoroughly human person could come to have suchfantastic things said or believed about him, and it makes this look completely

natural. In other words, those who believe these things about Jesus are never

made to look fraudulent or ignorant.

Social Location of the Novels

Of course, these novels have not been composed in a social or cultural vacuum. In

interesting, and different, ways both books reflect their context. This is evident,for one, in the awareness both authors exhibit of the question of Jewish com-

plicity in the death of Jesus. Mailers novel exonerates all but a few Jews in the

death of Jesus, making it clear that the trial was attended only by the priests of



22/24


the Temple (p. 221) and those surrounding and loyal to them. Gone are the

crowds who call loudly for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. In

truth, Mailers is more historically plausible than the gospel accounts, since the

latter suffer from the burden of explaining why the priests were afraid of the

crowds one day (Mt. 26.5//Mk 14.2//Lk. 22.2) and controlled them the next (Mt.

28.20//Mk 15.11).

Like Mailer, Ricci exonerates the Jews, but in a different way. At the trial,

when the Jewish inquisitor finds no fault with Jesus, the unnamed Roman gov-

ernor accuses him of siding with Jesus because both are Jewish. Motivated by

political gain, the governor condemns Jesus because he needs to create the

appearance of having squashed a revolt. Both novels arguably operate in a post-

Holocaust context in which people have become more sensitive about Christian

portrayals of the Jews in the death of Jesus.

The novels also fit into the history of Jesus scholarship. Both are firmly

ensconced in the so-called Third Quest. Riccis place here is easier to establish,

as we shall see below. One of the hallmarks of the modern quest for the his-

torical Jesus is the concern to distinguish between the Jesus of History and the

Christ of Faith. In the most simple (and simplistic) terms, academics are inter-

ested mostly in the Jesus of History, and this compels them to treat each gospel

individually, whereas the church (however defined) is interested in the Christ of

Faith and so is compelled to read the gospels as a piece. This, of course, is mosteasily evident in tendencies towards harmonization.

If one were to create a spectrum with the Jesus of History and the Christ of

Faith at opposite ends, both of these novels would sit closer to the Jesus of

History end, but not precisely in the same position.19 Characteristics that would

help us, in my opinion, place novels on this continuum would be the tendency of

the novel to harmonize the gospel accounts, and the treatment of miracles. In

this respect, Mailers novel sits closer on the spectrum to the Christ of Faith than

does Riccis more Jesus of History. We have seen this already: Mailers Jesus

performs the miracles practically as the gospels portray them, with the sole caveatthat Jesus has to learn his talent. Conversely, Riccis Jesus is a doctorand there

is not supposed to be anything mysterious about medicine. In fact, another fea-

ture of social location very much evident in the work of Ricci is the influence of

the Jesus Seminar: Riccis Jesus learns from and is deeply shaped by a cynic

itinerant in Alexandria when he is a boy, illustrating its place in the Third

Quest.20 In both novels, however, we can see the Criterion of Dissimilarity at

19. This is another reason that leads to the comparison of these two books in this paper.Other novels that are concerned more to portray the Christ of Faith, such as Anne Rices Christ

the Lord, whose Jesus is thoroughly Catholic and whose story is careful to harmonize the gos-

pels, are not easily comparable to either of these two novels.

20. The cynic influencer also appears in Christopher MooresLamb: The Gospel According



23/24


work: the Jesus of both novels has not much in common with the later Church,

or with the dominant Judaisms of his day. Indeed, at the close of Mailers novel,

Jesus comments on the embarrassment of so many rich Christians in what

became of his movement. In Anne Rices Christ the Lord, there is nothing dis-

similar between Jesus and the later (Catholic) church.

Mailer harmonizes the gospels more than does Ricci. By harmonization, I

mean that a writer not only draws from all the gospels for narrative details,

which I feel any novel oughtto do, but that the writer finds ways to make seem-

ingly inconsistent details appear to be fully consistent. So, for instance, scholars

are commonly troubled by the presence of both sapiential (wisdom sayings) and

prophetic (harsh condemnations) material in the gospels. In Mailers novel, this

comes about because Jesus changes his approach part way through the mission

as opposition to him becomes more fierce and less reasonable. Despite the fact,

however, that Ricci also mines all four gospels for narrative material, Mailers is

still the more harmonized version of the story, in that he appears to move less

critically from one source to another.

The social context of each writer is also evident in attempts to humanize

Jesus. What places Mailers novel closer to the Christ of Faith end of the spec-

trum here too is that Ricci takes this much further than does Mailer. As we have

seen, Mailers Jesus does miracles, but has to overcome human limitations of

both ability and faith. Ricci on the other hand really does generate a portrait ofJesus as thoroughly and exclusively human.

Conclusion

Ricci opens his Authors note at the close of the book with the claim, This is a

work of fiction (p. 457). What he means to say, I suspect, is that it has not been

his intent to write history, and so he possibly deflects the concerns of easily

offended religious readers. Yet as we saw at the start of the paper, Ricci cannotbe so quick to make such a claim. In many respects, Ricci has written history, if

in no other sense than he satisfies Thomas P. Macaulays famous observation

that the perfect historian must possess an imagination sufficiently powerful to

make his narrative picturesque.21 Ricci has created a novel about Jesus that

could very well be history wie es eigentlich gewesen, however inadvertent that

might be.

to Biff, Christs Childhood Pal(New York: W. Morrow, 2002). On the other hand, Anne Rice

has Jesus learn from Philo in Alexandria (Christ the Lord).

21. Quoted in R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1946), p. 241.



24/24


In this paper, I have deliberately avoided making observations about the

historical Jesus and references to historical Jesus scholarship because I did not

want it to dissolve into claims that one of these novels is more historical (and

therefore better) than the other. Ricci claims familiarity with historical Jesus

research, and it is quite easy to tell in places what he has been reading. Ques-

tions of sources, primary or secondary, are interesting, but of greater interest to

me is simply the phenomenon of the Jesus novel, and the drive to fictionalize

Jesus and those associated with him.

Since this is the first time attention has been drawn to the phenomenon of the

Jesus novel, I would like to close by suggesting some ways the Jesus novel

might figure in historical Jesus scholarship. Let me be clear, I cannot see that

anything can be learned about the historical Jesus from a modern fictional

account of his life. On the other hand, the overt creativity of the modern novelist

might tell us something about the covert creativity of the earliest Christian

writers. Most modern novelists are not trying to write history, and so they have

(or should have) greater leeway for creativity. But everyone agrees that ancient

historians did not have the same dedication to objective fact-telling that charac-

terizes modern (positivist) historiography, even setting aside for a moment the

fact that history contains much that is story. Therefore, there may be something

scholars of the historical Jesus can learn, not about Jesus perhaps, but about the

drive to fictionalize him, from modern novels.Riccis novel in particular, but others as well, sheds some light on a recent

new movement in biblical studies, namely memory theory. Riccis novel illus-

trates how memory is used, how memory changes, and how memory is con-

structed differently by different people. Again, I doubt the novels will tell us

anything about Jesus, but perhaps they can tell us something about how Jesus

traditions, both sympathetic and hostile, developed and were transmitted. Simply

the existence of the Jesus novel indicates a common and long-standing desire to

understand the roles of Jesus and his counterparts in narrative form. No less,

they all share a common interest in similar topics and characters: Jesus, Judas,Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Jesus birth, mission and death,

miracles, the Kingdom of God. Interest in understanding these characters and

questions has consumed people for nearly two thousand years; perhaps the

modern novel is the next tool in understanding that process.

Documents

Crook Z.- Fictionalizing Jesus, Story and History in Two Recent Jesus Novels (JSHJ 2007)