Normally, I love Russel Shorto. I have read with the greatest pleasure both of his books about Amsterdam and New York. And this particular subject - possibility of historical identity of Jesus Christ - has long been one of my all-time favourite subjects. So why then, you might ask, has this been such a joyless task instead of exciting read? It took me forever to finish it and it became one of those books that i am reading just to finish what I started. At first I thought it was because I frankly read too many books about this, starting with 1903. "Did Jesus Live 100 BC? " trough excellent 1965. "The Passover plot" and more recent books by Lee Strobel, Bart D. Ehrman, Bill O'Reilly and Ian Wilson, capping it all with brilliant "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth' by Reza Aslan - I honestly thought maybe its just a case of overkill and I had read too much about it, but actually what struck me this morning is something else.
For such a controversial subject, Russell Shorto is simply too reverent for his own good. If you are playing with fire, if you dare to poke in a hornet's nest, than do it properly or don't do it at all. Where other authors before and after him, dared to bring something new, something provocative or simply stir controversies by considering fresh alternatives, Shorto goes on trough what was already being mentioned many times elsewhere but he is never going to upset anybody with new claims or new ideas. My personal feeling was that he did not dare to go any further (for whatever reason) and somehow got sidetracked by modern day Christian circles, televangelists and whatnot - I take brave works by other authors like Hugh Schonfield or Richard Dawkings anytime instead of this bland camomile tea.
No comments:
Post a Comment