I love the way she concludes the piece as she builds on the ideas of Prof Stephen Moore who argues in his book 'God's Beauty Parlour and Other Queer Spaces in and around the Bible' that there is a tendency to remake Christ to "ensure minimal disturbance to the status quo". Dr Toh writes:
"Beauty often makes us tremble at its sight. But in the context of our makeover culture, a physically attractive Christ who fulfils rather than challenges the beauty ideals of Western culture seems rather suspect. If, as Moore suggests, a good-looking Christ focuses our attention on outward rather than inward transformation, and personal rather than collective change, then perhaps our tendency to airbrush Him into perfection is an effective way to keep the real man (the real God?) at bay."Dr Justine Toh lectures in cultural studies at Macquarie University.
The full article can be read HERE
Posts
8 comments:
Trevor,
I'm not quite sure what Justine means when she says "our tendency to airbrush Him into perfection is an effective way to keep the real man ... at bay".
Her use of the word "effective" implies intent. That is, those depicting him intend to keep him at bay (whatever that means), and depicting him as attractive is effective in acheiving that aim. But since those depicting him are likely to be Christians themselves, I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. Perhaps she means it unintentionally keeps him at bay... but she doesn't really say what this actually means.
As an aside, I'm inclined to think that Jesus would have been considered "good looking" in his time. According to Christians, he was delivering the most important message in history, so it would make sense that Jesus took a form that would give this message the greatest chance of success. This, I believe, also explains why Jesus was male.
Also, do you believe that half of his DNA would have come from Mary? If so, any discussion of his looks must also take into account his mother's.
Note that all of this assumes he existed in the first place.
Tim
Hi Tim,
Her message is directed at anyone who thinks they know who Jesus is but haven't taken the time to read the Bible carefully and understand his character and teachings fully. She is suggesting that many develop their own caricature of Jesus and fail to grasp exactly who he was and is.
As to the the DNA question, I'm not a geneticist, but the Bible teaches that he was both man and God. To be a man he had to have DNA and for Mary to carry him in her womb he would have needed her DNA. Any Christian geneticists out there?
And yes, Justine Toh is assuming Jesus existed as does virtually every ancient historian in the world.
Cheers,
Trevor
Trevor,
"She is suggesting that many develop their own caricature of Jesus and fail to grasp exactly who he was and is."
Well that is certainly true. If that was her point, however, she has a rather roundabout way of getting there!
"As does virtually every [Christian] historian in the world."
Fixed it for you. :-)
There are quite a number of reputable historians who seriously question the existence of Jesus.
"To be a man he had to have DNA and for Mary to carry him in her womb he would have needed her DNA."
This is actually a very interesting question. If he existed, he certainly had to have human DNA. Whether Mary supplied half of the DNA is less certain. Presumably the male half of his DNA, at the very least, came from the Holy Spirit, so if one half of the DNA had a divine source, there's no reason to assume that the other half didn't as well. Perhaps god even just implanted a blastocyst. Now that I think about it, that seems the likeliest explanation, since the alternative is that god made sperm and exposed the conception of his son to the whims of human biology.
But I digress.
Tim
Cheeky Tim! There are some vocal non-Christian ANCIENT historians who don't believe in Jesus, but I stand by my comment that most ancient historians do believe that Jesus existed. I'll be cheeky now - it's also clear that you're neither a theologian or a geneticist. I'll let a real Christian geneticist out there tell you why. Cheers, Trevor
Trevor,
Glad you could see the funny side!
Regarding the proportion of historians who believe that Jesus existed, I would note the following:
1
To gauge the proportion scientifically (i.e. using unbiased sampling and proper statistical methods) would be quite difficult. Nevertheless, my "gut feel" is that you are probably right - it's likely that the majority of Western, English-speaking ancient historians either believe that he existed, or that it is more likely that he existed than not.
2
On reflection this is hardly surprising. We are naturally more disposed to noticing the views of Western, English-speaking historians - historians that were raised in societies with a predominantly Christian tradition.
3
Truth is not a popularity contest. We must never forget that history is littered with instances of incorrect views being held by whole societies. Using the proportion of historians that believe in Jesus as proof that he existed amounts to an argumentum ad populum (a logical fallacy). In 20 years we may see that the opposite is true - that a majority of historians believe he didn't exist - and I feel confident in assuming that you wouldn't allow that as evidence for his non-existence.
___
It's clear I'm not a theologian or a geneticist because I've previously told you that I'm an actuary. :-)
That aside, I'm not sure that a geneticist will add much insight when discussing a virgin birth.
Tim
Tim said:
"As an aside, I'm inclined to think that Jesus would have been considered 'good looking' in his time."
As an aside, some have thought otherwise based on "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him" (Isa 53:2).
"There are quite a number of reputable historians who seriously question the existence of Jesus."
1. As Trevor Cairney notes, his original contention was for ancient historians, not modern ones. Tim is equivocating.
2. This is a red herring. The real issue is what the historical record evidences. It wouldn't matter if there were a thousand historians who doubted Jesus' existence if the historical record demonstrates otherwise. A fact is a fact is a fact. And, while I doubt Tim is likely to accept them, yes, the New Testament manuscripts are part of the historical record. See the list of books below for supporting arguments.
3. Not to mention (on a lesser note) Tim is making an assertion without an argument. Tim says there are "quite a number of reputable historians who seriously question the existence of Jesus" but he doesn't name any of them. Nor (more importantly) does Tim provide an argument for why they don't think Jesus existed.
4. In any case, if you want modern historians, here are some modern NT historians and other relevant scholars who do contend with evidence and argumentation that Jesus existed. Not all of them are conservative Christians either.
Barnett, P. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity.
Bauckham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
Blomberg, C. Jesus and the Gospels.
Bock, D. Jesus According to Scripture.
Bock, D. Studying the Historical Jesus.
Bruce, F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament.
Carson, D. An Introduction to the New Testament.
Chadwick, H. The Early Church.
Evans, C. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.
Evans, C. Jesus and His Contemporaries.
Guthrie, D. A Shorter Life of Christ.
Hurtado, L. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins.
Komoszwski, E., Sawyer, M., & Wallace, D. Reinventing Jesus.
Kostenberger, A. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown.
Licona, M. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.
Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament.
Porter, S. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research.
Stein, R. Jesus the Messiah.
Van Voorst, R. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.
Wright, N. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is.
Wright, N. The Contemporary Quest for Jesus.
Wright, N. Who Was Jesus?.
There are others we could mention but this should be a good representative list with which to begin.
"This is actually a very interesting question."
It's also a speculative question for which there's no definitive answer. As such, while it's fine to speculate out of curiousity, perhaps akin to how Medieval theologians would speculate about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, whatever conclusions one arrives at wouldn't ipso facto undermine the traditional doctrine of the virgin birth and incarnation given that they're speculative conclusions at best.
Worse, since Tim questions whether Jesus exists in the first place, not to mention questions whether God exists, there's no good reason to engage him in such speculative questions apart from humouring him. Tim doesn't believe what he argues, so why should we bother to debate him? As a fallback position, Tim could simply say he doesn't believe anyway. So who cares? It's just an artificial exercise at best. So, apart from a similar curiousity and interest for speculation, why does Tim waste our time?
"If he existed, he certainly had to have human DNA. Whether Mary supplied half of the DNA is less certain. Presumably the male half of his DNA, at the very least, came from the Holy Spirit..."
I'm quite familiar with genetics. However, this isn't solely a question over genetics. This is a question over embryology and other medical science topics. More importantly, it's a question over philosophical theology as well.
"...so if one half of the DNA had a divine source, there's no reason to assume that the other half didn't as well."
Tim's hypothetical cuts both ways. There's no reason to assume it did.
"Perhaps god even just implanted a blastocyst. Now that I think about it, that seems the likeliest explanation, since the alternative is that god made sperm and exposed the conception of his son to the whims of human biology."
Tim should be more specific. For example, I presume he means God implanted the blastocyst somewhere on the uterine wall in the uterine cavity, not, say, in the uterine tubes, since the latter would portend a potential ectopic pregnancy. It's poor intellectual form for Tim to speculate in generalities and with some vagueness.
"On reflection this is hardly surprising. We are naturally more disposed to noticing the views of Western, English-speaking historians - historians that were raised in societies with a predominantly Christian tradition."
1. Once again, you're equivocating. Cairney noted ancient historians. Ancient historians aren't identical to "Western, English-speaking historians."
2. The first "Christians" were Jews. Perhaps Luke is an exception if we consider him a Gentile "God-fearer" (understanding the historical context of "God-fearers"). Although he could've been a Jewish proselyte. In any case, he brings important testimonial evidence to bear on the historical veridicality of Jesus' existence, to say the least.
3. I'd include the other NT writers as relevant historical witnesses and the NT manuscripts as relevant historical documents.
4. Outside of the NT one could include non-Christian and even "pagan" historians like Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus. Josephus has a much debated statement about Jesus in his writings which we can adjudicate on other grounds. There are others as well.
"Truth is not a popularity contest. We must never forget that history is littered with instances of incorrect views being held by whole societies. Using the proportion of historians that believe in Jesus as proof that he existed amounts to an argumentum ad populum (a logical fallacy)."
Since Cairney didn't use "the proportion of historians that believe in Jesus as proof that he existed," then he's not committing this logical fallacy. The issue is over the historical and testimonial evidence itself, not how many people believe it. As I've noted above, it only takes one credible and reliable piece of evidence to substantiate Jesus' existence.
Post a Comment