What raised my eyebrows is the quote on the front cover says: "This will become a classic." --Anne Rice, author of Christ the Lord: out of Egypt.
So, where does she come off as qualified to assess N.T.Wright's writing? She writes crappy vampire books, has a Christian conversion, writes one shoddy piece of imaginary fiction on the missing years of Jesus the Christ as a young person that seems to me to be based on Gnostic writings, and she is given front cover billing on N.T. Wright's book. There's something wrong with this picture. Maybe I've connected the wrong dots. Maybe there's something I've missed. Maybe it's because I respect Wright and hold his writing up to high esteem. As I do Packer, Ortberg whose books I have also read.
What is this world coming to? Do people in the publishing world know that she writes trash? Does she have any theological training? What qualifications does she bring to evaluate theology? Does the publishing world think the reading world is stupid? (uh, don't answer that!) How do publishers choose who writes those blurbs anyway?
Elton Trueblood's line "holy shoddy is still shoddy"still fits.
Here's the review of Christ the Lord: out of Egypt I posted on Library Thing.
When I read this book for my book club a few months ago, I couldn't figure out why Jesus and some of the other characters laughed so much. The word "laugh" is so overused, and it puzzled me. I thought surely the author could have used various synonyms: smiled, giggled, grinned, cackled, snickered, guffawed...you get the idea. Then I read "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: have we missed the truth about Christianity" by N. T. Wright, and then the light bulb went on. Rice is writing this book from a Gnostic point of view. Wright indicates that "laugh" is a Gnostic code word of sorts. Since reading Wright many things make sense to me now. Also part of the book takes place in Alexandria, and in it Jesus studied under Philo. Wright comments that Philo is associated with gnosticism in "The Last Word" which is about scriptural authority. Rice may profess Christianity, and Christianity Today had a nice little puff piece about her conversion. Ultimately she would have to rely on extra-Biblical writings to create the young life of Jesus of which canonical scripture is silent. Even in fiction there has to be some historical basis. When I read this book at first it struck me as "just ok". But now I can't recommend it at all. Her worldview is poles apart in subtle kind of sneaky way from mainline scripture. She has followed after the extra-biblical, non-canonical stuff quite cleverly. I am somewhat amazed that there hasn't been more mentioned about this in the press by people who are experts in Biblical times. In fact I don't think I've seen anyone who has questioned it in this way. I think her writing skills and historical research are extremely weak. Very disappointing. I think this book is riding the coattails of the Davinci Code mania to sell a few books. 4/1/07
*thanks to Elton Trueblood, this is still a timeless truth.
I'd really like to know from Biblical scholars what they think about this book.
OK. I think that's enough thinking for today. I'm going to go take a nap.
No comments:
Post a Comment