New Anne Rice novel from the point of view of 7-year old Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krasnaya_Kometa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Krasnaya_Kometa

Guest
nytimes.com/2005/11/03/books/03masl.html?8hpib (may be registered-only)

Basically this book is from the point of view of 7-year old Jesus. Apparently, in this novel, Mary and Joseph are portrayed as having “had a life-altering experience that they hide from their 7-year-old”, Jesus. When He asks questions, His relatives don’t answer. Eventually, Jesus discovers his abilities.

Grr… I’m not sure what to make of this. First of all, Anne Rice should not be portraying the parents of Jesus as hiding their “secret” from Jesus, because this would most likely constitute a sin, which we all know Mary was without.

Is Anne Rice religious? This smells like the next DaVinci code to me. One person in particular that I love very much loves to read, so she’ll likely read this as well 😦 She already says that the DaVinci code was one of her favorite books :mad:
 
I saw Rice speak about the book yesterday on television. At first she talked about how she’s had a religious conversion and has reverted to Catholicism after 30 years of being an atheist. I thought, “That’s great,” and even though I had some reservations about the presumption of portraying God in the first person, I thought it could be okay.

She talked a bit about the research she did for the book, reading the Bible and studying history. She said she wanted everything that happened in the book to be consistent with the New Testament. Then she started talking about Jesus’ brothers and sisters, biological siblings.

Apparently none of the studying she did involved Catholic texts.
 
40.png
ElizabethAnne:
Then she started talking about Jesus’ brothers and sisters, biological siblings.

Apparently none of the studying she did involved Catholic texts.
Click to expand...
Apparently you are correct if she is talking about siblings. :bigyikes:
 
Though she does claim Catholicism as her Faith…

:rolleyes:

When I saw this, I was actually quite excited. I have read Anne Rice’s work, when I was in college, and enjoyed it (before I was Faithful). She has an intriguing writing style, and I could follow her characters closely through the stories…

That said, I examined her website and found the following:
Anne Rice:
I do not have any particular interest in the gnostic gospels. They do not figure in this book at all, as far as I know. Also I have not written anything at all resembling the Da Vinci Code. I thought the Da Vinci Code was a scream.
Click to expand...
See the entire text on her October 28th letter here:
annerice.com/bs_b_ChristTheLord.htm#anne

Then Father Cocucci from Wilmington Diocese wrote the following regarding the book (to Anne Rice herself).

annerice.com/bs_b_ChristTheLord-ltr.htm

So after reading all of this, I’m sure there will be many Catholics that will not agree with her portrayal of young Jesus, (and if she does include “siblings” in her stories, I will be one of those Catholics). But if she follows Catholicism, and adds a little ‘texture’ to the history we know well, paired with her vivid writing style- there may be a lot of good that comes from this.

I did some further research, and one of the reviews on the book had this to say about Jesus’ family in the story:
Jesus bar Joseph, Yeshua as he is called in Aramaic, is seven years old, living in Alexandria, Egypt, surrounded by an extended family that includes his father Joseph (who Jesus knows is not his father), his mother Mary, his step-brother James (from Joseph’s first, dead wife), his uncles Cleopas, Alphaeus, and Simon (brothers of Mary and Joseph), their wives, and a gaggle of cousins. Like most Jews living in a Roman city as cosmopolitan as Alexandria, the young Jesus speaks Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. He studies the Torah with a learned teacher in the morning, and he helps in the family trade, carpentry, in the afternoons.
Click to expand...
intellectualsinc.blogspot.com/

No direct siblings here. Just extended family that we often use to defend the “brother” references in the Gospels. The only thing I wonder about is the ‘brother of MARY and Joseph’ reference above…
 
Hmm, well Rice was definitely talking about Jesus’ cousins first and how large families were common back then. Next, she started talking about His brothers and sisters and how much she liked portraying His relationship with His siblings. Maybe she went with all of them being half-siblings…
 
She used some non-canonical texts as sources of research and as a result you have Jesus killing a bully and bringing him back to life and you have him making birds out of clay and things like that.

I don’t think Jesus would kill someone just because he could. That would be a sin, and therefore couldn’t have happened.
 
40.png
ElizabethAnne:
Hmm, well Rice was definitely talking about Jesus’ cousins first and how large families were common back then. Next, she started talking about His brothers and sisters and how much she liked portraying His relationship with His siblings. Maybe she went with all of them being half-siblings…
Click to expand...
She probably went with them being children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
 
40.png
Jayson:
She probably went with them being children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Click to expand...
The review of her book that I read said it was faithful to Catholic understanding at least in regards to sibling(s) (I think there’s only one) in the book are most definitely a child of Joseph’s from an earlier marriage and that Mary remains a virgin until she dies.

Kris
 
I’d like to suggest you all read the book. I’m nearly finished with it and have thus far no problem with it. In fact, I think Rice has done exceptionally well, considering the challenge of narrating Jesus in the first person. When asked the question by Matt Lauer on the Today Show “How can you put words into the mouth of Jesus?”, she replied that the book took artistic liberties only as far as the Gospels would allow her to do so. In addition, she added, many devotional prayers, hymns and pieces of art have in fact put words into the mouth of Jesus. I sense that doing so is only dangerous insofar as this…you must know the Jesus of the Gospel…the true Jesus. Rice says she went to great pains not to “freelance” Jesus. She felt obliged to root her Jesus into the Jesus of the four Gospels.

As regards to “siblings”, many of you have guessed correctly. They are Jesus’ half-siblings. Rice clearly has James as the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. She does not purport that Mary wasn’t a virgin. In fact, she supports her perpetual virginity as far as I have read it.

Rice has thus far beautifully portrayed Jesus as fully human and yet fully divine. His humanness is clearly shown in his willingness and need to learn. His divinity is very present…so present that Rice has Jesus learning the extent and nature of his divinity. He knows he’s “different” from the other children…he is slowly learning how it is so.

I would suggest reading this book in the context of its artistic and Christian inspirational value. It attempts to heighten the Christian imagination within the boundaries of the Four Gospels. If read as strictly historical fiction, the reader will lose sight of the author’s intention. If read from a strictly theological perspective, the reader again loses sight of the author’s intention.

As far as I have read, this book stays true to its intention and its purpose. I’ll come back and post when I’ve finished the book.
 
I totally would love to own the book. Maybe if I read this, it will rekindle fiction into my life, and make me read her older vampyric books 😛

Just having read her conversion to Catholicism, it seems abit fishy to me after the influx of Christian things from the Passion to the Left Behind series to the resurgence for the Chronicles of Narnia, and that supposedly horrible movie Saved, but I am quite greatful that she came back after atheism…
 
I was reading an article today by Richard Ostling about Ann Rice’s reversion to Catholicism and the bulk of the article is inspiring and satisfying. There’s a point where she talks about her journey and committment to Christ and how she’s given up writing about vampires. This is an amazing turnabout for her and the article calls her an “unlikely recruit” for a number of reasons including the fact that her late husband was a convinced atheist and her son is a gay activist. Her words can be inspiring including a quote describing her journey back: “there was a yearning, a nostalgia, a grief” towards Catholicism, but “I had this idea lodged in my head. I could never go back … the longing was tremendous. The desire was tremendous.” “I gradually realized that I could return, that I believed again.” However, although she calls herself a faithful and orthodox believer, the article quotes her as saying, “The move (return to the faith) wasn’t easy because I was tortured by questions I couldn’t resolve - I’ll do my best on unresolved questions.” The article states that “among these are her church’s ban on woman priests and opposition to gay sex. She’s convinced that both will vanish eventually.” Say what?! This last part nearly ruined it for me. Why do people who say they have completed their journey back to the Catholic church say they are faithful and orthodox and yet their positions counter that? After a long and courageous journey back to the faith, you’d think that she would have carefully explored why the church opposes women priest and gay sex. What could have been a great story ends up being somewhat of a disappointment … Just my opinion.
 
Riley259 said:
“The move (return to the faith) wasn’t easy because I was tortured by questions I couldn’t resolve - I’ll do my best on unresolved questions.” The article states that “among these are her church’s ban on woman priests and opposition to gay sex. She’s convinced that both will vanish eventually.” Say what?! This last part nearly ruined it for me. Why do people who say they have completed their journey back to the Catholic church say they are faithful and orthodox and yet their positions counter that? After a long and courageous journey back to the faith, you’d think that she would have carefully explored why the church opposes women priest and gay sex. What could have been a great story ends up being somewhat of a disappointment … Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

She eventually may come to terms with these issues. I know in my case, there was a time I was under the heresy or the Protestants, and they had me doubting everything. In these past few years since I stopped going to their youth groups, I have returned and am more Catholic than ever. But right afterward thre were a lot of things I had issues with, but knowing that Catholicism was the true Church of Christ, I prayed to God for wisdom and knowledge. For example, every week at Communion time I would pray to God that He would help me believe that I was recieving the body of Christ Himself, and eventually I did.
 
Krasnaya Kometa:
She eventually may come to terms with these issues. I know in my case, there was a time I was under the heresy or the Protestants, and they had me doubting everything. In these past few years since I stopped going to their youth groups, I have returned and am more Catholic than ever. But right afterward thre were a lot of things I had issues with, but knowing that Catholicism was the true Church of Christ, I prayed to God for wisdom and knowledge. For example, every week at Communion time I would pray to God that He would help me believe that I was recieving the body of Christ Himself, and eventually I did.
Click to expand...
Those are good sentiments. I’ll pray for her then. Thanks.
 
Just thought I’d follow up as I promised. I’ve finished the book. I can’t think of much more to say about it other than it is inspiring, artistic and helpful.

As far as her conversion I choose to give Rice the benefit of the doubt that she in fact has made a full conversion. There are many Catholics who struggle with their faith with respect to the fundamental truths of Catholicism. So Rice is having a hard time reconciling her feelings about homosexuality and women priests. There are plenty of good Catholics who have a hard time coming to grips with the Transubstantation. The difference is, they don’t drop it just because they can’t understand it. They wait and trust. Perhaps their time for understanding the matter has not arrived. Perhaps this is the case for Rice.

What I think is safe to say is that Rice loves the Catholic faith so much that she is risking her very career for it. And what a career it has been. It takes guts to convert to the Catholic faith. I believe it takes even more guts to do so under Rice’s circumstances.

I’ll continue praying for her as well.
 
This is a really good book. I hope people will read it for themselves and not pay attention to all the heresay.
 
While I was away from the Church, I read all of Rice’s novels. After my own reversion, I thought that I could never read her again. I was so surprised to hear about her conversion and this new book. Every interview I have seen with her is encouraging, so far. I am a little hesitant to get the book, but I may.
 
From what I have read and heard, she doesn’t appear to be a totally “loyal to the Magisterium” Catholic. Perhaps if we are patient and remember to keep Ann Rice in our prayers she will learn more about her Catholic faith and the “why’s” of certain teachings. She has come a long way from her vampire days, and like all of us needs a bit polishing up here and there!
 
Krasnaya Kometa said:
nytimes.com/2005/11/03/books/03masl.html?8hpib (may be registered-only)

Basically this book is from the point of view of 7-year old Jesus. Apparently, in this novel, Mary and Joseph are portrayed as having “had a life-altering experience that they hide from their 7-year-old”, Jesus. When He asks questions, His relatives don’t answer. Eventually, Jesus discovers his abilities.

Grr… I’m not sure what to make of this. First of all, Anne Rice should not be portraying the parents of Jesus as hiding their “secret” from Jesus, because this would most likely constitute a sin, which we all know Mary was without.

Is Anne Rice religious? This smells like the next DaVinci code to me. One person in particular that I love very much loves to read, so she’ll likely read this as well 😦 She already says that the DaVinci code was one of her favorite books :mad:
Click to expand...

Anne Rice is rumored to be a witch. She has a lot to do with the occult of darkness. She also has S/M attachments. I am sorry I do not have an address for you but I read about her awhile ago. The articles showed her with witches and dressed as one herself.
 
Rebecca,

<<Anne Rice is rumored to be a witch. She has a lot to do with the occult of darkness. She also has S/M attachments. I am sorry I do not have an address for you but I read about her awhile ago. The articles showed her with witches and dressed as one herself.>>

I’m thinking that the above was a part of her dark past before her conversion experience…which I hope is ongoing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top