Scan barcode
A review by frazzle
Damascus by Christos Tsiolkas
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.