The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, traduzido para português para algo como O Bom Jesus e o Infame Cristo, revisita a história do homem e da figura mitológica dividindo-o em dois irmãos gémeos, Jesus e "Cristo". Isto permite-lhe ao mesmo tempo repensar a origem do cristianismo como credo e como igrejas ou organizações, tal como criar duas pessoas muito mais credíveis que o relato do "messias" que nos é trazido pelo novo testamento, os evangelhos seleccionados e as suas interpretações pelas várias igrejas. O primeiro passo nesse sentido é retirar-lhes a primeira prova de divindade, sendo que aqui Maria não está grávida de deus mas de um homem que se faz passar por anjo e a convence que está a fazer a vontade divina.
Nesta história, Jesus é o profeta bíblico, o que faz discursos para a população, o que anuncia a vinda do reino de deus, o que provoca as instituições religiosas e administrativas. No início ele tem fé absoluta em deus e em tudo o que diz, mas à medida que o tempo passa e Jesus se vê sem respostas da parte de deus e sem evidência da vinda do seu reino, começa a questionar-se: "If that makes me a fool, I'm one with all the fools you made. (...) Is that what you're saying to me? That when I hear the wind, I hear your voice? When I look at the stars I see your writing, or in the bark of a tree, or the ripples on the sand at the edge of the water? (...) So, what's the answer? These things are full of your words, and we just have to persevere till we can read them? Or they're blank and meaningless? (...) No answer, naturally. Listen to that silence. Not a breath of wind; the little insects scratching away in the grasses; Peter snoring over there under the olives; a dog barking on some farm out behind me in the hills; an owl down in the valley; and infinite silence under it all. You're not in the sounds, are you. There might be some help in that. (...) If I thought you were in those sounds, I could love you with all my heart, even if those were all the sounds you made. But you're in the silence. You say nothing. God, is there any difference between saying that and saying you're not there at all? I can imagine some philosophical smartarse of a priest in years to come pulling the wool over his poor followers' eyes: "God's great absence is, of course, the very sign of his presence" or some such drivel.(...) When the fool prays to you and gets no answer, he decides that God's absence means he's not bloody well there." Este é o homem que acreditava no deus do antigo testamento, no deus que cria, que fala, que se mostra, que castiga e perdoa e que em nome dele pedia às pessoas para deixarem tudo para trás e trabalharem apenas para corresponder à sua ideia de santidade. E esse homem nunca poderia ser, ao mesmo tempo, defensor do deus dos homens, do deus ausente, do deus implícito, suposto, provável, do deus que fala através de interpretações de escritos de homens e de instituições auto-proclamadas. No seguimento da conversa que citei parcialmente acima, Jesus diz: "Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn, but only forgive.".
Por outro lado, "Cristo" - que aqui é alcunha, para se não se identificar de início qual o seu real papel na história - é um homem estudioso, inteligente, que sabe as escrituras de cor, que argumenta com os adultos, que tem visão a longo prazo. É este que, com a influência de um indivíduo que ele pensa ser um anjo, começa a preparar a criação de uma igreja. Entenda-se que ele o faz com as melhores das intenções, mas - e como é típico daquilo que conhecemos hoje das igrejas cristãs - com o maior dos paternalismos. Cristo pensa ser necessária essa organização - o pastor - para levar as pessoas - as ovelhas - no caminho certo de acordo com o que deus quer (ou o que ele acha que ele quer). Não consigo deixar de ver aqui uma bela referência à moralidade de rebanho que Nietzsche acusa as igrejas judaico-cristãs de induzir no povo europeu e que tanto atrasou o nosso progresso cultural e social. No sentido de criar essa igreja, Cristo não se importa de relatar a vida de Jesus modificando vários factos, nem sempre pormenores, de forma a criar milagres, a fazê-lo parecer menos homem e mais divino, e até inventando coisas como a ideia de ele querer que Pedro funde tal igreja ou de lhe tencionar dar as chaves do céu. Convence-se que está a fazer o correcto com frases como: "There is time, and there is beyond time. History belongs to time, but truth belongs to what is beyond time. In writing of things as they should have been, you are letting truth into history. You are the word of God.".
A intenção não é provar nada, o livro não é uma investigação factual, nem um documentário, embora se baseie nos supostos relatos dos factos e mantenha grande parte do que hoje se crê ter sido a vida de Jesus. The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ assume-se como uma história mas também e essencialmente como uma exploração da origem das histórias e uma provocação à mente do leitor, deixando-o a pensar ou repensar Jesus, deus ou a religião em geral e suas instituições. Tudo isto escrito por uma pessoa que notoriamente tem um conhecimento profundo da bíblia. É por isso um livro que pode ser de interesse tanto para ateus e agnósticos como para cristãos ou crentes de outras religiões.
Há mais dois pontos que me parece importante comentar. Philip Pullman não é insultuoso nem desrespeita os cristãos com este livro. O seu tom não é tanto o de lhes mostrar que são tolos, burros, idiotas (como acontece frequentemente com o discurso de muitos ateus militantes), mas muito mais o de lhes mostrar que não devem acreditar cegamente na igreja. Há uma diferença entre acreditar na mensagem de Jesus, acreditar que ele era filho de deus e acreditar nas igrejas que apareceram entretanto e dizem ser representantes dessas mesmas divindades. Uma crítica que, no entanto, não posso deixar de fazer, é de que o autor foi demasiado directo em algumas mensagens. O leitura teria sido bastante mais agradável se as personagens não falassem tão claramente para o leitor, se as mensagens fossem um pouco mais implícitas.
Este livro pertence a uma colecção de vários trabalhos sobre mitos, na qual fiquei agora bastante interessado.
I decided to read this book because I'm a fan of Philip Pullman since I read His Dark Materials, I'm interested in the exploration of the history and foundation of religions and I thought the title was curious and funny.
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ revisits the story of the man that became a myth dividing him in two twin brothers, Jesus and "Christ". This allows him both to rethink the origin of christianity as a belief and religious organizations and create two men who are much more believable than the usual messiah as reported in the selected gospels and their official interpretations. The first step to achieve this is stripe them off their granted divinity, writing them into this story not as the sons of god but of a man that passed himself of as an angel doing god's will and convinced Mary she had to have sex with him.
Jesus becomes the biblical prophet, the one who gives the speeches, who announces and the coming of the kingdom of god, who provokes the religious and administrative institutions of his time. He starts of a true believer both in god and in the things he says about him, his wishes and his kingdom. But as time goes by and he never hears a thing from god, never gets an answer to his prayers, never sees any evidence of the kingdom, he starts questioning himself: "If that makes me a fool, I'm one with all the fools you made. (...) Is that what you're saying to me? That when I hear the wind, I hear your voice? When I look at the stars I see your writing, or in the bark of a tree, or the ripples on the sand at the edge of the water? (...) So, what's the answer? These things are full of your words, and we just have to persevere till we can read them? Or they're blank and meaningless? (...) No answer, naturally. Listen to that silence. Not a breath of wind; the little insects scratching away in the grasses; Peter snoring over there under the olives; a dog barking on some farm out behind me in the hills; an owl down in the valley; and infinite silence under it all. You're not in the sounds, are you. There might be some help in that. (...) If I thought you were in those sounds, I could love you with all my heart, even if those were all the sounds you made. But you're in the silence. You say nothing. God, is there any difference between saying that and saying you're not there at all? I can imagine some philosophical smartarse of a priest in years to come pulling the wool over his poor followers' eyes: "God's great absence is, of course, the very sign of his presence" or some such drivel.(...) When the fool prays to you and gets no answer, he decides that God's absence means he's not bloody well there." This is the man who believed in the god of the old testament, the one who creates, speaks, shows himself (if indirectly), who punishes and forgives, and in his name asked all men to leave all behind and work only to become almost saints. And that man could never be the one who stands for a god of men, absent, implicit, assumed, likely, a god who speaks only through the interpretations of people's words and self-proclaimed institutions. Further ahead in the same conversation from which I quoted above, Jesus says: "Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn, but only forgive.".
The purpose here isn't to prove anything new, the book is no investigation, no documentary, though it is based on the supposed factual reports and does keep most of the story of what we now believe might have been the life of Jesus. The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ presents itself as a story, but also and essentially as an exploration of the origin of stories and a provocation to the reader's mind, making him think or rethink Jesus, god or religion and its institutions. All this written by a man who clearly has a profound knowledge of the scriptures. It's an interesting book both to atheists and agnostics, christians and other believers.
There are two other comments I must add. Philip Pullman isn't insulting or disrespectful towards christians in the book. His tone is not that much one to make them feel foolish or stupid (as ends up happening a lot with militant atheists), but more to make them question the absolute belief in a church. There is a big difference between believing in Jesus' message, believing he was the son of god and believing in the churches that spawned around and presume to represent him. The negative criticism I have is that the author was too direct, too straightforward in his messages. It might have been better, both to read and to achieve any result, if those messages were a bit more implicit.
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ is part of a collection of works on myth in which I'm now very interested.
Nesta história, Jesus é o profeta bíblico, o que faz discursos para a população, o que anuncia a vinda do reino de deus, o que provoca as instituições religiosas e administrativas. No início ele tem fé absoluta em deus e em tudo o que diz, mas à medida que o tempo passa e Jesus se vê sem respostas da parte de deus e sem evidência da vinda do seu reino, começa a questionar-se: "If that makes me a fool, I'm one with all the fools you made. (...) Is that what you're saying to me? That when I hear the wind, I hear your voice? When I look at the stars I see your writing, or in the bark of a tree, or the ripples on the sand at the edge of the water? (...) So, what's the answer? These things are full of your words, and we just have to persevere till we can read them? Or they're blank and meaningless? (...) No answer, naturally. Listen to that silence. Not a breath of wind; the little insects scratching away in the grasses; Peter snoring over there under the olives; a dog barking on some farm out behind me in the hills; an owl down in the valley; and infinite silence under it all. You're not in the sounds, are you. There might be some help in that. (...) If I thought you were in those sounds, I could love you with all my heart, even if those were all the sounds you made. But you're in the silence. You say nothing. God, is there any difference between saying that and saying you're not there at all? I can imagine some philosophical smartarse of a priest in years to come pulling the wool over his poor followers' eyes: "God's great absence is, of course, the very sign of his presence" or some such drivel.(...) When the fool prays to you and gets no answer, he decides that God's absence means he's not bloody well there." Este é o homem que acreditava no deus do antigo testamento, no deus que cria, que fala, que se mostra, que castiga e perdoa e que em nome dele pedia às pessoas para deixarem tudo para trás e trabalharem apenas para corresponder à sua ideia de santidade. E esse homem nunca poderia ser, ao mesmo tempo, defensor do deus dos homens, do deus ausente, do deus implícito, suposto, provável, do deus que fala através de interpretações de escritos de homens e de instituições auto-proclamadas. No seguimento da conversa que citei parcialmente acima, Jesus diz: "Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn, but only forgive.".
Por outro lado, "Cristo" - que aqui é alcunha, para se não se identificar de início qual o seu real papel na história - é um homem estudioso, inteligente, que sabe as escrituras de cor, que argumenta com os adultos, que tem visão a longo prazo. É este que, com a influência de um indivíduo que ele pensa ser um anjo, começa a preparar a criação de uma igreja. Entenda-se que ele o faz com as melhores das intenções, mas - e como é típico daquilo que conhecemos hoje das igrejas cristãs - com o maior dos paternalismos. Cristo pensa ser necessária essa organização - o pastor - para levar as pessoas - as ovelhas - no caminho certo de acordo com o que deus quer (ou o que ele acha que ele quer). Não consigo deixar de ver aqui uma bela referência à moralidade de rebanho que Nietzsche acusa as igrejas judaico-cristãs de induzir no povo europeu e que tanto atrasou o nosso progresso cultural e social. No sentido de criar essa igreja, Cristo não se importa de relatar a vida de Jesus modificando vários factos, nem sempre pormenores, de forma a criar milagres, a fazê-lo parecer menos homem e mais divino, e até inventando coisas como a ideia de ele querer que Pedro funde tal igreja ou de lhe tencionar dar as chaves do céu. Convence-se que está a fazer o correcto com frases como: "There is time, and there is beyond time. History belongs to time, but truth belongs to what is beyond time. In writing of things as they should have been, you are letting truth into history. You are the word of God.".
A intenção não é provar nada, o livro não é uma investigação factual, nem um documentário, embora se baseie nos supostos relatos dos factos e mantenha grande parte do que hoje se crê ter sido a vida de Jesus. The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ assume-se como uma história mas também e essencialmente como uma exploração da origem das histórias e uma provocação à mente do leitor, deixando-o a pensar ou repensar Jesus, deus ou a religião em geral e suas instituições. Tudo isto escrito por uma pessoa que notoriamente tem um conhecimento profundo da bíblia. É por isso um livro que pode ser de interesse tanto para ateus e agnósticos como para cristãos ou crentes de outras religiões.
Há mais dois pontos que me parece importante comentar. Philip Pullman não é insultuoso nem desrespeita os cristãos com este livro. O seu tom não é tanto o de lhes mostrar que são tolos, burros, idiotas (como acontece frequentemente com o discurso de muitos ateus militantes), mas muito mais o de lhes mostrar que não devem acreditar cegamente na igreja. Há uma diferença entre acreditar na mensagem de Jesus, acreditar que ele era filho de deus e acreditar nas igrejas que apareceram entretanto e dizem ser representantes dessas mesmas divindades. Uma crítica que, no entanto, não posso deixar de fazer, é de que o autor foi demasiado directo em algumas mensagens. O leitura teria sido bastante mais agradável se as personagens não falassem tão claramente para o leitor, se as mensagens fossem um pouco mais implícitas.
Este livro pertence a uma colecção de vários trabalhos sobre mitos, na qual fiquei agora bastante interessado.
__________________________________________________________________________
I decided to read this book because I'm a fan of Philip Pullman since I read His Dark Materials, I'm interested in the exploration of the history and foundation of religions and I thought the title was curious and funny.
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ revisits the story of the man that became a myth dividing him in two twin brothers, Jesus and "Christ". This allows him both to rethink the origin of christianity as a belief and religious organizations and create two men who are much more believable than the usual messiah as reported in the selected gospels and their official interpretations. The first step to achieve this is stripe them off their granted divinity, writing them into this story not as the sons of god but of a man that passed himself of as an angel doing god's will and convinced Mary she had to have sex with him.
Jesus becomes the biblical prophet, the one who gives the speeches, who announces and the coming of the kingdom of god, who provokes the religious and administrative institutions of his time. He starts of a true believer both in god and in the things he says about him, his wishes and his kingdom. But as time goes by and he never hears a thing from god, never gets an answer to his prayers, never sees any evidence of the kingdom, he starts questioning himself: "If that makes me a fool, I'm one with all the fools you made. (...) Is that what you're saying to me? That when I hear the wind, I hear your voice? When I look at the stars I see your writing, or in the bark of a tree, or the ripples on the sand at the edge of the water? (...) So, what's the answer? These things are full of your words, and we just have to persevere till we can read them? Or they're blank and meaningless? (...) No answer, naturally. Listen to that silence. Not a breath of wind; the little insects scratching away in the grasses; Peter snoring over there under the olives; a dog barking on some farm out behind me in the hills; an owl down in the valley; and infinite silence under it all. You're not in the sounds, are you. There might be some help in that. (...) If I thought you were in those sounds, I could love you with all my heart, even if those were all the sounds you made. But you're in the silence. You say nothing. God, is there any difference between saying that and saying you're not there at all? I can imagine some philosophical smartarse of a priest in years to come pulling the wool over his poor followers' eyes: "God's great absence is, of course, the very sign of his presence" or some such drivel.(...) When the fool prays to you and gets no answer, he decides that God's absence means he's not bloody well there." This is the man who believed in the god of the old testament, the one who creates, speaks, shows himself (if indirectly), who punishes and forgives, and in his name asked all men to leave all behind and work only to become almost saints. And that man could never be the one who stands for a god of men, absent, implicit, assumed, likely, a god who speaks only through the interpretations of people's words and self-proclaimed institutions. Further ahead in the same conversation from which I quoted above, Jesus says: "Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn, but only forgive.".
The purpose here isn't to prove anything new, the book is no investigation, no documentary, though it is based on the supposed factual reports and does keep most of the story of what we now believe might have been the life of Jesus. The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ presents itself as a story, but also and essentially as an exploration of the origin of stories and a provocation to the reader's mind, making him think or rethink Jesus, god or religion and its institutions. All this written by a man who clearly has a profound knowledge of the scriptures. It's an interesting book both to atheists and agnostics, christians and other believers.
There are two other comments I must add. Philip Pullman isn't insulting or disrespectful towards christians in the book. His tone is not that much one to make them feel foolish or stupid (as ends up happening a lot with militant atheists), but more to make them question the absolute belief in a church. There is a big difference between believing in Jesus' message, believing he was the son of god and believing in the churches that spawned around and presume to represent him. The negative criticism I have is that the author was too direct, too straightforward in his messages. It might have been better, both to read and to achieve any result, if those messages were a bit more implicit.
The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ is part of a collection of works on myth in which I'm now very interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment