“This is a story”. The words emblazoned across the back cover that attempt to pre-empt and placate any of the expected religious fervour. It is true that this is a work of fiction and, in one sense, makes no claims to historical veracity at all. However, in another sense this book is very much about history and how history in interpreted – in the words of the blurb “this book is about how stories become stories”.
Pullman’s central literary device is the idea that Mary bore twins; a proposition with no historical credentials but handy for explaining away that inconvenient resurrection story. The lives of these two sons are delineated along the familiar paradigm of the so-called “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of faith”. The “Jesus” character is an ordinary child, who gets into mischief and shows no particular signs of greatness until, inspired by the teaching of John the Baptist, he becomes a wandering teacher preaching the coming of the Kingdom. The “Christ” character is an obsequious child, who studies in the synagogue, and who also responds to the teaching of John but with a vision of a worldwide church. “Christ” is visited on several occasions by a stranger who encourages his vision and instructs him to write down the sayings of Jesus, being careful not to confuse history with “the truth beyond time” (i.e. the truth that better serves the church). It is this stranger that persuades “Christ” to betray “Jesus” to the High Priest and later to stage the resurrection by pretending to be “Jesus” thereby providing a “miracle” that will inspire men. Pullman’s agenda is clear.
Though the book is not intended as a historical study, it is clear that Pullman is attempting to present a “rationalist” view of the life of Jesus and his fairly amateurish attempt flags up some of the problems with this approach. Pullman’s approach to the sources in eclectic and uncritical, drawing on the four canonical gospels and some apocryphal material. At some points, such the Sermon of the Mount, he pretty much paraphrases the gospel accounts; other instances, which do not suit his purposes, are reworked or omitted. The problem for Pullman is he wants to take some of the words of gospel accounts at face value and some as later fabrications but his only criteria for distinguishing between the two is what fits his conception of who Jesus was. This is a microcosm of the attempts of critical scholars to discover the “historical” Jesus; often their efforts, though steeped in academic language, amount to no more than Pullman’s arbitrary methodology.
The events of Jesus’ life are treated in a similar way. Miracles are created out of coincidence and rumour; the sick hear “Jesus” speak and feel better, the five thousand had some food really and “Jesus” encourages them to share, the wedding runs out of wine because the chief steward keeps back some to sell and “Jesus” shames him into bringing it out. Yet Pullman never attempts to explain why “Jesus” does not contradict the miracle-stories or turn away those seeking to be healed but instead seems to accept the fame that the miracle-stories bring. Pullman’s explanation of the resurrection is a good example of this clumsy revisionism. The body of “Jesus” is stolen but Pullman never reveals who stole it – not the disciples who are surprised by the empty tomb. Mary, the mother of Jesus, present at the crucifixion, conveniently returns to Nazareth before the resurrection morn, and presumably is never consulted about her two sons. “Christ” makes a few appearances and then leaves for a new town to lead a quiet life; we are left to presume that the disciples just let him go without question. The book is full of apologetic phrases about “Christ”, such as “he had the sort of face that few people remember” (!), in an effort to make the twin story stick. Even with the free-hand of artistic license, Pullman cannot create a plausible alternative to the resurrection event.
Viewed as a work of fiction, the book has few merits. It follows the gospel accounts rather slavishly. The characterisation of “Jesus” is poor; he is overlooked in favour of “Christ”, whose character is also under-developed. The story struggles to get going and has no real drive impelling the reader forward. Perhaps the most interesting sections are where Pullman’s own angst comes through clearest, particularly in Gethsemane where we find “Jesus” in prayer. Rather than “let this cup pass from me”, we find “Jesus” complaining about God’s absenteeism, espousing existentialist attitudes and predicting the corruption of the Catholic Church.
In sum, this book is neither a great literary work nor a significant challenge to Christianity.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)