I finished The Robe a few days ago.
Suffice to say, it was good. Well written, in the sense that it was an easy read, understandable. Not spectacular, so sometimes not as riveting, but it didn't stay boring for longer than a page.
Now to the heart of my engaging post: I do believe that Lloyd Douglas tried to add to the deeds and miracles of Jesus.
Yes, I know that Jesus must have performed hundreds and thousands more miracles than actually specifically recorded. But, even so, to make up a plausible miracle and tie it into one of the first miracle of Jesus, such as Jesus performing something on his way to the wedding in Cana.
First of all, it says in John 2:11 that the water turned to wine was the first miracle of Jesus. If he had really stopped by the house of an invalid young woman and miraculously gave her the most beautiful voice, why would one of the disciples have recorded that the second miracle was the first? Besides, according to The Robe, everyone knew that Jesus had stopped at Miriam's house and came late to the wedding (none of which is heard of in John) and something wonderful happened, because Miriam was no longer sad for herself and she sang beautifully. But none of this is in the Bible!
It is one thing to put a character into a book and have them be the recipient of some miracle, such as sight from blindness. Nevertheless, it is a far different issue to put in a main character and have details about their miracle, how it came about, and to put words into the mouth of the Healer, Jesus.
There is a way to write and 'make up' more miracles and deeds of Jesus than is specified in the New Testament, but creating detailed miracles which play an important part in the book but are not in the Bible is not the way to do it.
Douglas did the portrayal of the Tribune whose garrison was commanded to put Jesus to death very well. The details of the crucifixion were fuzzy, but that was meant to be since the Tribune was so young he let himself get drunk since he had to do order the horrifying task of nailing an innocent man to a wooden cross. I am glad it was not too graphic and tried to draw a portrait of Jesus or outline the whole scene of what Jesus did before he was crucified. So why didn't he write about the miracles in that way? Why couldn't Douglas have used the main miracles which the disciples recorded as part of his story, instead of making up his own miracles?
No comments:
Post a Comment