Scan barcode
drawdownthemoon's review
4.0
An unflinching examination of humanity and all its limitations and failings, even in the struggle for purity and faith. Tsiolkas’s afterword particularly resonates with me, as someone in a similar position to him – we are both LGBTQ+ individuals alienated from the Christian religion we were raised on; unable to reconcile its teachings of love and acceptance with the hatred and hypocrisy of modern-day churches – and I am immensely heartened by the very existence of this book.
digital_archivist's review
1.0
I must state I did not finish this book. I painfully got up to page 285. I’d had enough. I won’t be finishing this book. Enough said.
oakleighirish's review
2.0
Damascus is the product of a dark and demented imagination. I appreciate that Damascus is fiction, but Tsiolkas’ obsession with the Gnostics and apocryphal writers (even consulting the Quran) as his sources is mystifying. Also the academics Tsolkias’ consults are atheists of varying degrees. That there is excellent critical work done on Paul within Christian academia, seems to be intentionally overlooked. Dare I say is a bit like going to a Turkish historian to get the facts on Greek history.
All of this aside, the story is disjointed, long passages of the book are crude and egregiously explicit. Any hint of the miraculous, immanent, transcendent or divine, present in the Biblical texts, is ruthlessly stripped from narrative.
Tsiolkas is preoccupied with the visceral, corporeal elements of life in the muck and the dirt, of life reduced to bodily functions of excretions and emissions, and of lust and anger unleashed. Damascus unfortunately has no redemptive soul, there is nothing within its pages to lift us from the dirt, despair and depravity of life.
All of this aside, the story is disjointed, long passages of the book are crude and egregiously explicit. Any hint of the miraculous, immanent, transcendent or divine, present in the Biblical texts, is ruthlessly stripped from narrative.
Tsiolkas is preoccupied with the visceral, corporeal elements of life in the muck and the dirt, of life reduced to bodily functions of excretions and emissions, and of lust and anger unleashed. Damascus unfortunately has no redemptive soul, there is nothing within its pages to lift us from the dirt, despair and depravity of life.
frazzle's review
4.0
This book needs some pretty serious trigger warnings. Rape, extreme violence and swearing, all sorts, enters sometimes unannounced.
This book has been quite thoroughly researched, and written by someone who has a personal knowledge of the church and its theology. I think it captures how religion, fear of the gods, and superstition was quite totally immeshed in everyday life in the 1st century AD. I also like how it contextualises the absurdity of the Christian gospel: alongside all these other absurd beliefs, but scorned as illogical even by them.
Tsiolkas also does well to portray the various competing trajectories which were all fomenting simultaneously in the cauldron of early Christianity. He seems personally to lean towards Thomas' quasi-realised eschatology, whereby we just need to follow Jesus' teachings, and that the kingdom is already here, if only everyone were nice to each other. Paul's view he portrays (rightly I think) as focused on Jesus' death and coming again (though he's a bit too light on the resurrection - see below). It seems to me that no matter how much you think Thomas' is the nicer, Paul's just carries so much more persuasive force.
I like the way the book portrays the identity struggles the Jesus movement must have had, in terms of defining itself against non-Jesus-following Jews. It's often not immediately clear which characters are Christian and which Jewish, until there comes a more certain definition of 'Lord' as Jesus or 'Israel' as those who believe in him.
I think Paul may well have been a repressed, highly self-conscious man, but whose devotion to the Christian message won the day, and him a place in the history books. One who is as plagued by jealousy, pride and lust as the rest of us makes him quite sympathetic.
A few historical issues I found: I'm not sure the kind of (apparently widespread) persecution of Christians could realistically have happened in Rome in the way Tsiolkas portrays it as early as AD 63. Also I think he underplays the kerygmatic importance of the fact that Christ was risen from the dead (which we can see from Paul's letters was central to his message and important very early on), and overplays the fact that Christ knows our sufferings, having endured the very worst of it. This latter comes to be an extremely influential idea, but only really gains traction in the second century. But Tsiolkas is quite right to use it.
I think Tsiolkas has a bit of difficulty knowing how to portray the goodness of Christians without reverting to slightly cliched, Hollywood tropes, like on p. 127:
'The man lifts a hand to the girl's cheek. 'What did the prophet Yeshua tell us to do to those who hate us?'
'To offer my other cheek?'
The man smiles. 'That is right, little sister.''
Other minor gripes include:
- It's just a bit too long. Too much repetition of the same struggles and crises of conscience over the same issues. There were also a few too many 'and suddenly' moments. Not everything must have been an epiphany (even if the major event literally was). Tsiolkas could have done more with ideas and feelings growing in characters.
- What happens to Lydia? She just disappears, despite being a prominent figure early on, and important in the New Testament. Surely there was some scope for bringing her in? It would also have helped with the gender imbalance...
- Tsiolkas seems pretty reticent when it comes to miracles. I'd have liked to see what he did with this. His treatment of the couple of things which could be described as miracles (the exorcism of the boy and Paul's epiphany) suggests that he favours a pretty naturalistic reading. Surely there are some more interesting things to be made of miracles.
- Timothy is not particularly well explained. His suicide seems completely bizarre and out of character for one who is expecting the return of the Lord. (Or is this homage to his other teacher Thomas?) Surely despite him having got the weight of the two 'gospels' of his shoulders he'd still be concerned about his congregation? Why was he so obsessed with Thomas, when he'd been properly schooled by Paul? Lust? Fan-girling the 'Twin'?
- The prose wasn't inspired, and was a little uneven. The length of the book made it felt like it dragged at times.
Overall, an enjoyable read for a theologian (at the very least). Some missed opportunities, but some very interesting and inspired writing too.
This book has been quite thoroughly researched, and written by someone who has a personal knowledge of the church and its theology. I think it captures how religion, fear of the gods, and superstition was quite totally immeshed in everyday life in the 1st century AD. I also like how it contextualises the absurdity of the Christian gospel: alongside all these other absurd beliefs, but scorned as illogical even by them.
Tsiolkas also does well to portray the various competing trajectories which were all fomenting simultaneously in the cauldron of early Christianity. He seems personally to lean towards Thomas' quasi-realised eschatology, whereby we just need to follow Jesus' teachings, and that the kingdom is already here, if only everyone were nice to each other. Paul's view he portrays (rightly I think) as focused on Jesus' death and coming again (though he's a bit too light on the resurrection - see below). It seems to me that no matter how much you think Thomas' is the nicer, Paul's just carries so much more persuasive force.
I like the way the book portrays the identity struggles the Jesus movement must have had, in terms of defining itself against non-Jesus-following Jews. It's often not immediately clear which characters are Christian and which Jewish, until there comes a more certain definition of 'Lord' as Jesus or 'Israel' as those who believe in him.
I think Paul may well have been a repressed, highly self-conscious man, but whose devotion to the Christian message won the day, and him a place in the history books. One who is as plagued by jealousy, pride and lust as the rest of us makes him quite sympathetic.
A few historical issues I found: I'm not sure the kind of (apparently widespread) persecution of Christians could realistically have happened in Rome in the way Tsiolkas portrays it as early as AD 63. Also I think he underplays the kerygmatic importance of the fact that Christ was risen from the dead (which we can see from Paul's letters was central to his message and important very early on), and overplays the fact that Christ knows our sufferings, having endured the very worst of it. This latter comes to be an extremely influential idea, but only really gains traction in the second century. But Tsiolkas is quite right to use it.
I think Tsiolkas has a bit of difficulty knowing how to portray the goodness of Christians without reverting to slightly cliched, Hollywood tropes, like on p. 127:
'The man lifts a hand to the girl's cheek. 'What did the prophet Yeshua tell us to do to those who hate us?'
'To offer my other cheek?'
The man smiles. 'That is right, little sister.''
Other minor gripes include:
- It's just a bit too long. Too much repetition of the same struggles and crises of conscience over the same issues. There were also a few too many 'and suddenly' moments. Not everything must have been an epiphany (even if the major event literally was). Tsiolkas could have done more with ideas and feelings growing in characters.
- What happens to Lydia? She just disappears, despite being a prominent figure early on, and important in the New Testament. Surely there was some scope for bringing her in? It would also have helped with the gender imbalance...
- Tsiolkas seems pretty reticent when it comes to miracles. I'd have liked to see what he did with this. His treatment of the couple of things which could be described as miracles (the exorcism of the boy and Paul's epiphany) suggests that he favours a pretty naturalistic reading. Surely there are some more interesting things to be made of miracles.
- Timothy is not particularly well explained. His suicide seems completely bizarre and out of character for one who is expecting the return of the Lord. (Or is this homage to his other teacher Thomas?) Surely despite him having got the weight of the two 'gospels' of his shoulders he'd still be concerned about his congregation? Why was he so obsessed with Thomas, when he'd been properly schooled by Paul? Lust? Fan-girling the 'Twin'?
- The prose wasn't inspired, and was a little uneven. The length of the book made it felt like it dragged at times.
Overall, an enjoyable read for a theologian (at the very least). Some missed opportunities, but some very interesting and inspired writing too.
usernameabby's review
challenging
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
rosanna92's review
4.0
This blew me away from the research to the execution just unending amount of respect for this man and his work. I might write a review soon but before then just know that this is so unique and so beautifully brutal.
alexandrarose's review
4.0
While I’m sure it’s historically accurate, it’s always difficult for me to reconcile the visceral and obscene elements in Tsiolkas’ work.
alessburato's review
4.0
A raw depiction of the beginnings of Christianity in a climate so removed from contemporary society and yet so familiar.
Exploring refugees, patriarchy, homosexuality and class. Tsiolkas exports us to a different time to make a commentary on the way we live now.
Exploring refugees, patriarchy, homosexuality and class. Tsiolkas exports us to a different time to make a commentary on the way we live now.
fightingmarc's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
'On our travels, Saul, on the road, that's where I understood. We were without work or family or coin, we had no property or children or belongings, and yet we were all happy. And we were generous and we were fulfilled. That's why I think Yeshua is my Saviour, Saul: with him we were in Eden. We were walking in the garden of the Lord... That I saw, brother, that I witnessed, that miracle occurred. I was in the beauty of the world, I knew it as the Lord knows it. The colours of it, friend, the creatures in it, the light within it, the sky that is endless and the sea that rolls to the end of Creation. I gave thanks for the friendship and the love and the sympathy contained within it. This world can be the kingdom, can't you see that?'
A really interesting story about the creation of the christian church! I think most of it went over my head, but there's some really beautiful moments staged in it.
A really interesting story about the creation of the christian church! I think most of it went over my head, but there's some really beautiful moments staged in it.
bensheahan's review
3.0
This is a devastating picture of the savage, brutal world of early Christianity. There are beautiful, heart-rending scenes of self-abandoned, death-to-self love, and scenes of furious passion for purity of doctrine. These are shattering pictures of what early Christians endured. Images of these scenes will stay in my head and I hope, inspire more selfless love from me. The insights into the cultural landscape of the time is invaluable and brings new meaning to New Testament letters.
Reading the author’s note at the end brought clarity to much of what I’d wondered about the novel:
- Thomas, who in the gospels doubted before he met the resurrected Jesus, has no mention in his apocryphal gospel of the resurrection, and so in ‘Damascus’ he denies the resurrection completely.
- What initially seems tender, passionate, brotherly love between the male protagonists possibly takes on homosexual undertones after reading about the author’s difficulty reconciling Pauline teaching and his own homosexuality. The relationships at the end of the novel feel like a love triangle between Paul, Timothy, and Thomas.
- Timothy commits suicide from despair of the saviour ever returning and overwhelmed by the evil he sees in his city. I find this hard to reconcile with the picture of Timothy that Paul paints in his letters to him.
The book takes on the feel of melodrama in the final chapter, and I found the scenes from the earlier chapters more riveting and interesting. Would have given 4 or 5 stars if the book aligned more with the canonical New Testament.
Reading the author’s note at the end brought clarity to much of what I’d wondered about the novel:
- Thomas, who in the gospels doubted before he met the resurrected Jesus, has no mention in his apocryphal gospel of the resurrection, and so in ‘Damascus’ he denies the resurrection completely.
- What initially seems tender, passionate, brotherly love between the male protagonists possibly takes on homosexual undertones after reading about the author’s difficulty reconciling Pauline teaching and his own homosexuality. The relationships at the end of the novel feel like a love triangle between Paul, Timothy, and Thomas.
- Timothy commits suicide from despair of the saviour ever returning and overwhelmed by the evil he sees in his city. I find this hard to reconcile with the picture of Timothy that Paul paints in his letters to him.
The book takes on the feel of melodrama in the final chapter, and I found the scenes from the earlier chapters more riveting and interesting. Would have given 4 or 5 stars if the book aligned more with the canonical New Testament.