|
|
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Highly original!, March 19, 2002
Given that alternate states of consciousness are associated with religions--whether examined cross-culturally or historically--it is somewhat surprising that the Jesus literature has ignored this fact. Until the publication of Davies's book, that is. Why this gaping hole in the literature? Either Jesus scholars have not read widely in the religion literature, or have themselves never experienced alternate states of consciousness--or both. I suspect that the second factor is the more important one--and reflects the fact that most Jesus scholars have come from a socio-economic class that precludes their having had much, if any, contact with contemporary pentecostalists. I read Davies's book several years ago (shortly after it was published), and the book sticks in my mind because I can't think of another book about Jesus that displays more creativity than Davies's book (not surprising given that creativity is not particularly welcomed in academia, "normal" research being what's prized, as Thomas S. Kuhn has argued). Granted that a creative book is not THEREBY a good book; but Davies's book IS a good book--and for two reasons. First, it makes a very plausible argument for a facet of Jesus's ministry that has been all but ignored by Jesus scholars. My main complaint is that Davies goes too far in arguing that he is presenting an ALTERNATE view of Jesus. I think, rather, that he should have stated that he was presenting a COMPLEMENTARY view--and then indicated how his particular puzzle piece fits into the larger picture of Jesus, as presented by critical scholars. Second, one of the problems of the dominant scholarly view of Jesus (that he was an apocalypic) is that it renders Jesus virtually irrelevant for the modern. For why should one today be interested in an individual who, 2000 years ago, (1) made a false prediction (i.e., that God's arrival was imminent), (2) offered an ethic that was premised on the assumption that God's arrival was imminent, and (3) whose ministry was a "bust" (given, e.g., that the "orthodox" Christianity that emerged to dominance had--and has--virtually no relationship with his ministry)? Insofar as Jesus attained alternate states of consciousness, and we can do the same today (also through "natural" means), we can emulate some aspects of Jesus's ministry. (Davies does not state this, but such a conclusion is implicit in his discussion.) Thus, Davies's thesis helps us arrive at a picture of Jesus that makes Jesus relevant for us moderns. Which picture is the only one that is of ultimate interest anyway.
|