Noem die naam Darwin en by die meeste mense (diegene wat kan lees, in elk geval) is daar onmiddellike reaksie. Bitter min mense wat ek al teëgekom het staan neutraal teenoor dié man en sy beroemde boek On the Origin of Species.
Baie gelowiges verdoem die man tot die verste, warmste hellevuur denkbaar en ander maak graag flou grappies oor die mens wat kamtig "van ape afstam". (Natuurlik 'n onwaarheid, Darwin het nooit beweer dat mense van ape afstam nie. Net dat ons 'n gemeenskaplike voorouer deel.)
Nietemin, dis mos deel van die menslike toestand: as iets jou bangmaak, spot jy daarmee; en as iets jou bedreig en jy is bang dis dalk wáár, verdoem jy die boodskapper.
En dan is daar ook diegene wat hom amper as 'n soort kultus-figuur aanhang, wat te verstane is as mens in gedagte hou dat hy 'n radikale denkskuif veroorsaak het by almal wat sonder enige agendas belangstel in hoe die skepping tot hiertoe ontwikkel het.
Één ding is seker, Charles Darwin gryp steeds die meeste denkende mense se verbeelding aan. Sy werk het behels dat hy eintlik met spirituele sowel as intellektuele vuur gespeel het en dit verklaar dalk hoekom hy so lank gedraai het met die publikasie van sy bevindings oor natuurlike seleksie en die veranderende organismes oor die eeue heen.
Die rolprent Creation wat tans hier te sien is, stel die man en die agtergrond waarteen hy geleef het aan ons voor.
As jy 'n suiwer wetenskaplike belangstelling in Darwin se werk het, gaan dié fliek jou dalk teleurstel. Buiten vir besondere natuurskoon en pragtige kamera-skote daarvan en hier en daar 'n verwysing na sy wetenskaplike bevindings, handel die storie hoofsaaklik oor die Darwin-gesin se lief en leed. Darem teen die agtergrond van sy lewenstaak, maar nogtans 'n tipe gesinsdrama.
Daarenteen, as jy Darwin as 'n satanskind sien wat net die horinkies en swart vlerke kortkom, gaan jy ook teleurgesteld wees. Hierdie Darwin is alte menslik, met die menslike broosheid wat die meeste van ons ervaar. Hy het lief, hy kry seer, hy is onseker -- ook oor die publikasie van sy teorieë -- en hy ly aan swak gesondheid.
Dan ook beleef hy die één ding wat enige ouer sekerlik die seerste maak: die dood van 'n geliefde kind.
In sy diepste wese was Charles Darwin 'n toegewyde gesinsman. Hy het met sy niggie, Emma, getrou en hulle het vinnig 'n flukse gesinnetjie gehad. Dit was 'n besonder gelukkige huwelik, geseënd met 'n span kinders waarvan Annie die uitverkorene was. Sy het haar pa soos 'n skaduwee gevolg en was van kleins af geïnteresseerd in sy werk.
Die enigste moontlike geskil tussen Charles en Emma was die feit dat sy 'n toegewyde Christen was terwyl hy al hoe verder van die tradisionele geloof beweeg het. Tog bly hul liefde staande, hoewel sy hom in 'n stadium waarsku dat hy nie die oorlog teen God kan wen nie. Sy is ook opreg, hartroerend, bekommerd daaroor dat hulle nie die "ewigheid" saam gaan deurbring nie.
Paul Bettany vertolk die rol van Darwin en slaag daarin om hom vir gehore lewendig te maak. Bettany is in werklikheid ook getroud met Jennifer Connelly, die aktrise wat op 'n stil, sterk manier Emma aan die gehoor voorstel. Die fliek slaag juis vanweë dié twee se uitstekende samespel daarin om netjiese lyne tussen die emosionele konflik en die intellektuele een te trek.
Charles Darwin word in die vorm van Bettany 'n baie meer dinamiese ofskoon ietwat verwarde karakter as wat mens ooit sou kon aflei uit die bebaarde, statige man op die foto's wat ons almal ken.
Die fliek speel in die geskiedkundige Down House af, die huis in Kent, Brittanje, wat vandag nog bestaan en 'n bekende toeriste-aantreklikheid is.
Gaan kyk gerus as jy nog nie dié prent gesien het nie. Dit het meer pluspunte as foute en is totaal en al die moeite werd om te sien, veral as jy in geskiedenis en menslikheid belangstel.
1 Introduction
I would like to kick off with a quotation from the book Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide written by the Dutch biblical scholar, Johannes Fokkelman:
“Whoever writes a story establishes himself as the narrator, choosing the position of narrator. What does that mean? The narrator draws those lines and selects those details, right down to the smallest, that suit him. He is the boss of the complete circus. (...) He structures time, sketches space, brings characters on and takes them off again, misleads the reader at times, and enforces his point of view through thick and thin” (Fokkelman1999:55).
The four gospels are narratives and should be read and studied as narratives and not as if they are historical documents telling us exactly what Jesus did, and when and where he did it. Since this is the case we should keep in mind that one gospel writer’s image of Jesus, will be different from that of the other gospel writer’s image. We should not loose sight of this when we discuss the narratives about Jesus’ resurrection, or better still, his apparitions.
2 Four different characters, four different gospel endings
Now let us take a look at how the different gospels end.
The author of Mark, the oldest canonical gospel, written shortly after 70 CE, does not end his gospel with apparitions. The narrator concludes by telling the reader that three women went to the grave after the Sabbath (which ended Saturday evening after sunset) and arrived at the tomb just after sunrise on the Sunday morning. It took them 12 hours to get there! When they arrived at the tomb with their spices the stone which was placed at the entrance, was rolled away. On entering they saw a young man “wearing a white robe.” He told them that Jesus had been raised and that he was on his way to Galilee. They should share this news with the disciples and Peter. Terrified, the women ran away and did not share the news (Mark 16:8). This is how the oldest copies of the gospel of Mark ends. A later editor then added verses 9–20 to bring this gospel’s ending in line with the other gospels. This editor, however, did not grasp the communication of the original narrator. The original ending of Mark leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions (Suggit 1997:36). What should they do with Jesus’ message of the kingdom of God? Should they fear and stay in Jerusalem, or “go to Galilee” and continue his preaching of the kingdom?
In the gospel according to Matthew only two women went to the grave without spices. Arriving at the tomb, there was a violent earthquake with an angel descending from heaven. He informed them that Jesus was on his way to Galilee and that they should bring the news to the disciples. On their way they experienced an apparition of Jesus. He repeated the command of the angel that they should inform the disciples that he was on his way to Galilee. The guards were so frightened during the earthquake and the appearance of the angel that they fainted. After they recuperated some of them went to the chief priests and told them what had happened. They then fabricated a lie telling that Jesus’ body had been stolen by the disciples. Jesus eventually met the disciples on a mountain in Galilee where he commissioned them to baptize all the nations and to teach them to observe all that he had commanded them (Matt 28:19). Why a mountain and the emphasis to teach others to observe what Jesus had commanded? If we realise that Jesus is presented as the second Moses in this gospel, then it is evident why Jesus’ farewell speech should be on a mountain. Moses’ history ended on mount Nebo (Deut 34:1–12) and Jesus, like Moses, instructed people to obey the Torah (Matt 5–7). The Jesus of the gospel of Matthew never denigrated the Law of Moses.
Luke’s ending is nearly as long as John’s and has four scenes. The first scene is at the tomb. More than three women went to the tomb with spices. They discovered an open empty tomb. Dumbfounded, they saw two men “in dazzling garments” who suddenly stood at their side (Luke 24:4). The men reminded the women about the words which Jesus had spoken during his ministry. They then went to the disciples to break the news. None believed them (Luke 24:12). The reader is then introduced to a second scene (Luke 24:13–35) with two disciples on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus. The two did not recognize Jesus when he joined them. However, readers know that it is Jesus because the narrator informs them (Luke 24:15)! On the way Jesus interpreted the Scriptures to them and explained that “the Messiah had first to suffer and then be glorified” (Vermes 2008:99). It is only after entering the house and having a meal together that they recognize Jesus. He suddenly disappears and they immediately make a return journey. On arriving in Jerusalem they heard that Jesus has appeared to Peter. The third scene commences with Jesus suddenly standing in their midst (Luke 24:36–49). They think it is a ghost but Jesus invites them to touch him and then eats a piece of fish in their presence. Again he explains the scriptures to them and then emphasizes that repentance, bringing the forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name. The fourth scene is at Bethany where Jesus finally departs and the group returns to Jerusalem. These four scenes can be summarized as “in Jerusalem”, “on the way to Emmaus”, “in Jerusalem”, “on the way to Bethany and back to Jerusalem”. There is no statement concerning a rendezvous in Galilee. Everything happens in and around Jerusalem. Moreover, anyone who studied this gospel will be able to tell that forgiveness plays a prominent role in the gospel of Luke but it is not forgiveness based on Jesus’ so-called sacrificial death on the cross (cf. Luke 22:19–20).
Time does not allow me to discuss the ending of the gospel of John but take a quick look at my hand-out. What you should be able to see are the numerous differences. The narrator of the gospel of John tells a totally different story.
3 The grand narrative of Christianity
Theologians of the fourth and fifth century took these gospel narratives, as well as what was written about Jesus in the rest of the New Testament and turned them into the grand narrative of Christianity. This had the effect that a new Jesus character was created: Jesus Christ of the ecumenical creeds. Listen to the Apostles’ Creed and what it claims about Jesus:
“He ... was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born from the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; he descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from where he shall come to judge the living and the dead.”
The pre-scientific three-decker universe is unequivocally present in these formulations. Jesus came from heaven; was born on earth; died on the cross; descended into hell; was raised (resurrected), and ascended back into heaven. Jesus Christ of the Apostles’ Creed makes a full journey through the three-decker universe each Sunday morning when believers recite the creed.
But let us also pay attention to one of the Reformed confessions. The Heidelberg Cathecism, Lord’s Day 17, has the following question and answer:
Question 45: What benefit do we receive from “the resurrection” of Christ?
First, by his resurrection he has overcome death that he might make us share in the righteousness which he has obtained for us through his death...
Why is death such a big issue in Christianity? The answer: death is regarded as God’s punishment for Original Sin. If Adam and Eve had not sinned in the Garden of Eden we would have lived for ever according to traditional Christian theology. Anne Primavesi (2000:29) summarizes this as follows:
Since the time of Augustine, mainstream Christianity has held that without Adam’s sin, there would be no death. But because Adam sinned and left us prey to the power of death, we need[ed] a saviour. This ‘anthropo-logic’ implies, indeed states, that we human beings were distinguished from all others by being created by God to live forever. Our salvation by Christ means that God’s purpose stands, and that we alone, out of all species, are to be exempt from death.
Christians are still struggling to accept the idea that human beings are not different from any other species which lived, or are currently living on earth. Death is not punishment but part of the circle of life. To claim that resurrection is God’s way of rectifying the consequences of Original Sin is to misunderstand Genesis 2–3 and the position of human beings on earth. It is also to misunderstand the gospel which Jesus proclaimed during his lifetime. There is a discrepancy between his gospel and the gospel which Christianity, in its Western dress, proclaims. The churches’ gospel is a story of a Fall, “engineered by Adam and Eve, Redemption wrought by the self-sacrificing death of Jesus Christ; and his future Judgment of the entire human race” (Kennedy 2006:ix).
4 The resurrection narratives and the historical Jesus
When we study the synoptic gospels attentively it becomes evident that nowhere does Jesus proclaim that he has been sent to atone for the wrongdoings of Adam and Eve and their descendents. The Fall is not mentioned anywhere in his message. What then does Jesus proclaim? The author of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, offers the best answer: “After John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: ‘The time has arrived; the kingdom of God is upon you. Repent, and believe the gospel’” (Mark 1:14–15). What is this kingdom? It is God’s rule or his empire which stands over against the Roman Empire. Richard Horsley phrased this as follows: “The rule of God preached by Jesus stood in conflict with, even in judgment upon, the rule of Caesar and Herod” (1993:121).
Christians tend to think that the gospels have nothing to do with politics. According to them the gospels are about how to be saved; how to be reconciled with God; how to get to heaven. But, that is the gospel developed by Christian bishops of the Roman Empire. It is the gospel of the ecumenical creeds. It is not the gospel which Jesus proclaimed. The historical Jesus did not claim that his death would be “a sacrifice offered to God on behalf of sinful humanity” (Sullivan 2002:87).
We should keep in mind that the Roman authorities in Palestine were responsible for Jesus’ death. It was not the Jews who crucified Jesus. Crucifixion was a deliberate act of state terrorism to keep people submissive and the Romans reserved it for run-away slaves and political rebels. The inscription on Jesus’ cross carrying the words “The king of the Jews” reflects that they regarded Jesus’ acts in the Temple as acts of rebellion. That is why they arrested, judged and condemned him. With the inscription on the cross the Romans were saying to the Jews: “If you thought you had a king — there he hangs on the gallows.” The authorities, however, did not take the power of stories into account. Three days after Jesus’ crucifixion some of his followers started telling stories about apparitions.
What was the cause of these apparition stories? According to my understanding, the political claim of the Romans that they had killed the “king of the Jews”. The followers of Jesus rendered that claim void by telling stories that Jesus appeared to them. Clayton Sullivan (2002:157) is correct when he says: “Viewing Jesus’ death as a religious event (an act bringing about reconciliation between God and humankind) does not harmonize with viewing Jesus’ death as a political event (the execution of a potential rebel against the Roman Empire).” There is nothing in the gospels that suggests that the latter way of reading and understanding is wrong and that systematic theologians’ a-historical religious readings of the gospels are the only correct ones. In my opinion theologians are reading into the canonical gospels, the gospel which Christian bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries created.
Summary
We do not die because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. We die because death is part of how the whole cosmos functions. Everything that exists has a beginning and will have an end.
Bibliography
Baarda, T. 1991. ‘Als Christus niet is opgewekt...’ Het Nieuwe Testament in het ‘Geding’. Kerk en Theologie 42:305–316.
Cupitt, D. 2009. Jesus & Philosophy. London: SCM.
Horsley, R.A. 1993. The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context. New York: Continuum.
Kennedy, P 2006. A Modern Introduction to Theology: New Questions for Old Beliefs. London: I.B. Tauris.
Malina, B.J. 2001. The Social Gospel of Jesus: The Kingdom of God in Mediterranean Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress.
McKenzie, S.L. 2005. How to Read the Bible: History, Prophecy, Literature — Why Modern Readers Need to Know the Difference and What It Means for Faith Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pelikan, J. & Hotchkiss, V. 2003. Creeds & Confessions of Faith in the Chrisitan Tradition, Volume 2, Part 4: Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Primavesi, A. 2000a. Sacred Gaia: Holistic theology and earth system science. London: Routledge.
Primavesi, A. 2000b. Theology and Earth System Science, in Parsons, S F (ed), Challenging Women’s Orthodoxies in the Context of Faith, 21–34. Hants: Ashgate.
Sullivan, C. 2002. Rescuing Jesus from the Christians. Harrisburg: Trinity.
Vermes, G. 2008. The Resurrection. London: Penguin.
'n Baie interessante onderwerp was onlangs onder bespreking by die groepie intellektuele afvalliges waar RooiMier gereeld graag kuier. Dit het gegaan oor selfbedrog, of die Engelse "self-deception".
Dis mos maar eenmaal deel van die menslike toestand dat ons so maklik vir onsself kan jok. Nie moedswillig nie, maar meestal om ons pyn te verbloem of te probeer voorkom. Maar lei die nie dalk júís tot wrede ontnugtering nie? Want êrens, eendag, daal die waarheid soos die Groot Oordeel op jou neer, en dan?
Iemand opper toe die geldige argument dat vir baie mense dit ter wille van oorlewing is dat hulle hulself moet motiveer deur hulself sekere dinge wys te maak en die lewe bietjie rooskleuriger voor te stel as wat dit in werklikheid is. Dis dan ook amper soos dagdrome en dit hou byvoorbeeld die arm en sukkelende vrou met 'n string kinders om groot te maak se hoop lewendig. Daarom glo sy sy het die mooiste, slimste kinders en sy sien 'n suksesvolle toekoms wat wink.
Ek sal nie stry nie. Die psige skep sekerlik fiktiewe stories sodat 'n mens kan uithou en aanhou.
Is dit nie dalk hoe godsdiens ontstaan het by die primitiewe mens nie? 'n Mens kan dikwels so uitgelewer voel en die vroeë homo sapiens'e het sekerlik redes gesoek vir teëspoed en donderslae, droogtes en hongersnood. Maar dis dalk 'n Ommiblog vir 'n ander dag.
Agterna dink ek toe dat sulke selfbedrog ook uiters gevaarlik kan wees. Ek het in my lang, onbewoë dog dikwels beproefde lewe baiekeer te doen gekry met vroue wat met 'n alkoholis/vroueslaner/luiaard/egbreker getroud was en hulself nét nie uit die huwelik kon verwyder nie, "omdat ek hom liefhet."
Na RooiMier se onbeskeie mening het iemand wat 'n mishandelaar so liefhet dat sy gedweë toelaat dat sy vertrap word, dringend terapie nodig. Is liefde tussen twee mense nie veronderstel om 'n simbiotiese verhouding, tot albei se voordeel, te wees nie?
Maar dan ook weer, soos die slim ou die dag gesê het: Mindfulness is nie vir sissies nie. Die lewe lyk tog lekkerder en makliker as jy jou brilletjie met die pienk lense opsit. Vra maar vir Polyanna.
Want as jy elke oomblik van elke wakker uur in oplettendheid leef, as jy jou sintuie ingespan hou en as jy behóórlik waarneem en nie toelaat dat jou gedagtes jou aandag aftrek nie, dan sal jy 'n dapper mens moet wees.
Want dan mag jy dalk net agterkom dat:
Jy nie so slim is soos wat jy jou nog altyd wysgemaak het nie;
Jy nie so eties en eerlik is soos jy nog altyd geglo het nie (met die misnoeë teenoor ander wat gewoonlik met dié kwaal saamloop);
Die donderweer jou dalk mag tref terwyl jy na die silwer randjie van die donker wolk soek;Jou geliefdes nie so rein, opreg en lojaal aan jou is soos jy altyd gehoop het nie;
Jou voorouers heel waarskynlik polities en moreel heeltemal korrup was (al het hulle dit self dit dalk nie eens agtergekom nie);
Jou godsdienstige dogma onwaar is en jou groot piëteit tevergeefs was;Mense wat jy met groot meerderwaardigheid vroeër op neergesien het omdat hulle anders as jy was, eintlik heel gewone "goeie" mense is;
Jóú land, jóú taal, jóú geskiedenis op die lang termyn, as dit by die Groot Uiteinde kom en gesien in die groot oneindigheid van die heelal, 'n ronde nul beteken. So ook ál jou klein statussimbooltjies soos motorkar, woonbuurt, geleerdheid, kerklikheid, afkoms en, beste van alles vir die ydeles onder ons: voorkoms en kleredrag; en
Jy is nie lid van die meesterras nie, net so min as wat Hitler, Malema, Gandhi, die Dalai Lama of Obama is. Daar is net één menseras: homo sapiens.
Aanvaar dit nou maar eenmaal.
Dis dié wat die wyse man reken: om nugter na die lewe te kyk maak mens neerslagtig.
Sela, sê RooiMier, en sluk 'n ou pilletjie.