It's been many years since I read Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" and "The Vampire Lestat," but I recall liking them very much (the movie of the first book, not -- nor any of Rice's subsequent fiction). Fr. Dwight Longenecker has a nice interview with Rice on the First Things site, in which the author talks about her reversion to the Catholic faith. Hard to believe the woman who wrote "Lasher" is now talking this way. Praise God! Excerpt:
How did your scholarly research affect your personal quest for Jesus the Lord?My own biblical scholarship has drawn me closer to the Lord. I have found the gospels to be utterly convincing first-person witness to Jesus, and my studies have led me to conclude that the tradition regarding the writing of the gospels is in fact the truth.
John bar Zebedee wrote the books attributed to him; Matthew the tax collector did write Matthew; Luke is the physician who traveled with Paul; and Mark did transcribe Peter's sermons. My evaluation of this involved intense study of the Scripture itself for the "voice" of the person writing the document, and studies of the work of Bauchkham and Hengel and John A.T.Robinson as mentioned above.
The time I have spent reading Scripture has deepened my sense of obligation to our blessed Savior and my intense desire to write books for Him. He is alive for me in the pages of the Bible, far more than I ever dreamed he would be when I began my own quest in 2002.
I feel that my meditation on the gospels and my reading of ancient historians have all deepened my sense of the world in which Jesus likely moved from day to day. I feel myself drawing closer and closer to our Lord as I work, which is both a good thing and also a frightening and sometimes intimidating thing.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Ephesus has an extant amphitheatre from Graeco-Roman times, doesn't it.
An Anglican English prof friend of mine once asked a biblical scholar at a public lecture for his evidence that the Gospel writers were illiterate peasants. He just snuffled.
Wow! It's hard to understand the negative comments being leveled at Anne Rice's conversion.
For my part, the kvetching isn't at her conversion. It's that she's trashing a major field of study. True, it has its share of cranks and agenda-pushers, but it also includes a great many serious scholars, some of whom have been licensed by the Catholic Church and praised by popes!
An Anglican English prof friend of mine once asked a biblical scholar at a public lecture for his evidence that the Gospel writers were illiterate peasants. He just snuffled.
That's probably because it's like asking a baseball authority how many home runs Roger Staubach hit.
The gospels aren't even attributed to "peasants", save maybe John, if you want to call a fisherman a peasant. Mark's profession and class isn't mentioned. Matthew was a tax collector, and Luke is said to have been a physician. John is said to have come from a fishing family, but he was also said to have been quite young. So he probably wouldn't have remained a son of the lake.
Of course, the further twist is that we don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels. The attributions have been assigned merely on conjecture and best guesses. As I mentioned above, there are serious Catholic scholars who don't accept the traditional attributions.
there are serious Catholic scholars who don't accept the traditional attributions.
Yes, and that is understating it. Just read the introductions to the Gospels in the NAB Bible published by the US Bishops. Here is an excerpt from the Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew:
"The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain."
Also, it is quite proper for Catholics not to accept traditional attributions of gospels uncritically...after all, the Church itself presumably rejects that apocryphal writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc, were authored by the Apostles or religious figures they are attributed too. Heck, St. Paul himself says during his life others were passing off spurious letters in his name! (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2).
There there is the possibility that the author of the Gospel of John was in possession of a Rabbinic education - heavier on memorization than writing, as was common in those days (and still is in much of the Islamic world) and clearly on the mystical side of the tradition. There are a number of books which theorize just this recently. You can't prove it, of course, but it's entirely possible.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.