Before Dawn

I'm rather agnostic when it comes to religion, but when exposed to the right sermon I often find myself greatly moved. The themes behind Christianity are quite powerful, and sadly many of them remain as revolutionary today as they were 2000 years ago... We've yet to really master empathy, forgiveness and compassion, or to accept that we could be loved even when we do not love ourselves.

I do wonder if this is at least partly due to organized religion becoming *too* organized. Ritual worship can often strike me more as a task than a time of contemplation. It becomes a duty, and like many such duties, one expects to be rewarded for the time one puts into it. "I've gone to church every weekend, so I'm going to heaven" becomes as complicated as it gets for some people, and the idea that the message is the reward gets lost. (It certainly doesn't help when a church service is about as engaging as a Monday morning office meeting that goes overly long).

I think a fictional prose approach like the one you took for this story is quite valuable, as a result. It breaks the reader from the ritual observance of the story, and offers a chance to reengage the themes and messages of it. Additionally, it encourages them to challenge the assumptions within it, to question whether the author got it "right". In this case, it also allows us to make connections between ourselves and the characters from the gospels, which encourages us to see how the messages could be implemented in our own lives.

Well done, and a happy Easter to you and yours.

Generally I don't like reading these kinds of stories specifically because half of them are just retellings that try too hard to be true to the original - essentially a modern English direct translation of the stories from the Bible. The other half deviate way too far and often make no sense or make an effort to change history. Different views of the original story are very rare.

I'm sure some people might be offended by your story - not because of the content, so much, but because you're not a "certified source" of biblical stories (i.e. a priest, or the Pope, etc) - but I liked it.

First, I read the story as straight fiction. I'm Jewish. It was pleasant, certainly inoffensive, and forthright as a retelling of the Passion. Indeed, what is striking is how passive and forgiving the Magdalene and the Apostles are: a single gibe about the High Priest (who even in our history is remembered as a quisling) and no resentment toward the crowds who cheered the crucifixion. At first I thought you were being deliberately inoffensive, and then I reflected that instead you might be depicting them as ideals of Christian forgiveness, focused on the teaching rather than the anger from the loss.

There are almost infinite fictions about Christmas and the Virgin Mary and the saints, so I suspect what you see as a fear of storytelling stems not from a reluctance to develop prose fictions as much as it is a fear of tainting the central mystery of the resurrection. In any case, I related to it as midrash, a homiletical story form that pervades Jewish thought, and agree with you that it allows us to contemplate the events from a different perspective.

A few nits:

Golgotha and the Garden Tomb (if you follow Gen. Gordon), I think, were both north of the biblical city and uphill. The right hand path led to woodyards for the temple sacrifices and abattoirs.

The best ribbon is a cute device and echoes many Christmas tales.

I had always thought that Jesus was addressed as "Rabbi," "my master," not "teacher." "mori." Did you intend to make a point by that?

Soon after Herod the Great's death in 4 BC, Judea was ruled by Roman procurators, including Pontius Pilate. Herod's son Antipas, who ruled the Galilee, was uninvolved in the Passion.

Passover was a seven day holiday; Easter Sunday was the third day, a working day on which almost anything could be done so long as the holiday's rules were kept. The holiday had not ended.

Wishing you and your family a Happy Easter and, more importantly, the joy and courage that faith brings us all.

There's a constant in the human condition that keeps us in that recurruring need to rediscover certain things about outselves.




Indeed it doesn't. One thing that gets masked about the very early church was that it was as much a social revolution as, say, the hippie movement of the 1960 - and remarkably similar in some ways with its communal lifestyle and golden optimism, and in the backlash it provoked.




I was in church on Good Friday and I found my attention wandering. I planned out the story while I was there. or maybe my attention wasn't wandering and I was doing what i was supposed to do.

The thing I was trying to get a in the postscript was that I realised I wouldn't hesitate - and haven't hesitated - to try and draw feelings and truths out of events I know to be fictional, such as the Arthurian legends, Greek myths, and even Robin Hood, so why should I feel a taboo about drawing on events I believe to be actual? Hopefully people can approach the work at their own level from their own background and still find something that entertains, provokes, or encourages.




Thanks. Likewise.

They're rare in story form in our current society. Up to the Renaissance they were commonplace and Christian themes were used in all kinds of ways from Dante to Spencer. Even now that retelling is common in other media, from The Passion of the Christ to Jesus Christ Superstar to those rather tacky evangelical comic books to puppet theatre (yes, I helped out a gospel puppet theatre get into videos a few years back).




There are many people who see themselves as guardians or as challengers of doctrine. That's their problem.

The throwaway line in the gospels about the temple curtain being torn in two isn't actually a throwaway line; it's a key theme. In the Great Temple there were a series of courtyards and worship areas, each one more holy and more excusive than the rest; a woman's court, a men's court, a priest's court and so on. The holiest of holiest, the place where God was said to dwell, was masked by a heavy curtain.

Once a year one priest was chosen by lot to enter this area and make sacrifice. John the Baptist's father was one such choice, and it was there that God told him he'd be having a son. But the point was that God was hidden away, and only a special priest who'd been ritually prepared and kitted out with all the care we reserve now for someone we're sending into a neuclear reactor could go there once a year. God was so dangerous that a top paid professional had to be carefully made ready and sent to appease him.

And then, at the moment Jesus died, the curtain got torn apart and the holy of holies was exposed to everybody. Christians believe that Jesus' death and resurrection changed the way people can relate to God, curring out the middlemen and making him available everywhere to everyone. Some clergy have been playing catchup ever since.

Anyway, if people are unhappy I can show them my 1981 Swire Prize for New Testament Theology, one of my stranger awards, or show them the letter I've got from the President of the Methodist Church Connexion authorising me to lead worship and preach; or they can just get their heads out of their backsides.

I'm glad it was inoffensive. I don't think arrogant prosylitism helps with inter-faith dialogue.




I'm also drawing on the New Testament accounts, and particularly the gospel of John, which don't really emphasise those responses. Every Apostle and all the other principal followers of Jesus were Jews. The early church depicted in Acts of the Apostles saw itself as Jewish, met in synagogues each day, and followed Jewish teaching and custom. There doesn't appear to have been the kind of backlash against Jew of Roman that might have been expected.

Then again, after the arrest of Jesus the disciples were running scared; literally running at the time of the arrest, into the darkness down the slopes away from Gethsemene. None of the disciples were even in the crowd at Jesus' execution, except for John who may have had some powerful family connections. We're told a couple of times in scripture that at the time Mary and the other women brought news of the empty tomb the men were "hiding away for fear of the authorities".

And thereafter, the disciples believed that Christ had arisen. That amazing discovery presumably blunted any remaining grudge.

Early Christian writings that do place "blame" seem to emphasise the Roman rather than the Sanhedrin role in Christ's death. That's perhaps unsurprising given the Christian persecutions under Nero and his successors. It's only when Constantine makes Christianity the offical religion of the empire that a different scapegoat is required and the focus of blame shifts to the Jews.




There is perhaps a taboo around the Easter story. It's much easier to present the Christmas account - it has animals and babies and it can make a nice, if biblically inaccurate, tableau. The resurrection story is really made up of individual encounters that are very personal. Perhaps that's why the four gospel accounts all differ in their description of what happened when and to whom.







I had to make a choice between some conflicting sources for the site of the tomb. In the end I decided for dramatic rather than historical or geographical reasons that Mary went out via the Fish Gate in the Third Wall and along the Samarian Road, and that the tomb was slightly down a slope towards the valley of Gillion. But I accept that my geographical choices may be poor, having not either visited or properly researched the area.




It's also a question of what might be valuable to a woman like Mary Magdalen, especially if she was now living a life where men wouldn't give her ribbons any more.




I was trying to keep as much "biblical" language out of the story as possible. Many contemporary Christian Bibles translate Mary's recognition as "Teacher". For example, the bestselling New International Version reads:

"Jesus said to her, "Mary."

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

And yes, the Scripture does actually include the translation for those not familiar with the Jewish phrase.

In fact I used all John's dialogue verbatim in this story.

As for making a point, I wasn't thinking things through that deeply. However, master isn't really a term that's still in common use today whereas teacher is. Master now has negative connotations via slavery, or has sexual overtones. So given my choice of imperfect translation words I went with Teacher.




Herod appears in Luke 23. 7-12, wherein Pilate sends Jesus to be questioned by Antipas since Christ is Galilean and therefore under Herod's tetrachy. Herod mocks Christ and sends him back to the Romans.




That's a good point and I think I'll need to amend my text.




Thanks, and likewise. Rhiannon and I spent some time last night discussing the events of Passover.

What amazes me most about this story is that 2000 years or so have passed and your opening chapter could be happening today subbing in a Palestinian girl and Israeli soldier.

In fact that’s what I thought was happening till I got a bit further into it.

Interesting take on the well known story. It’s not often you see a humanisation of these characters (historical figures for those that prefer) and you do a good possible insight into the thoughts and emotions of Mary Magdalene. Nice job with all three (John and Simon Peter too).

I wonder if it will be more of a challenge to humanise the other Mary in this way. I suspect it would be harder to pull off convincingly. But that’s by-the-by, I think you did a fair job here. Nothing offensive about it either, but then I didn’t find anything offensive in the Life of Brian – so go figure.

I like Doubting Thomas. I identify with him.

I also admire him for having the guts to say what he thought, to express his doubts even in the face of all his friends and peers who'd "drunk the kool-aid". He had an honest doubt and he was honest about it.

All of which means that when Thomas meets Jesus he not only has a horrible moment when he has to deal with what he's said but he also gets to make history by being the FIRST disciple to bow before Jesus and say "My master and my God!" Yes, it's Doubting Thomas who makes that leap of faith and first says out loud that remarkable theological assertion.

Now there's a story arc!







That was deliberate. I wanted people to spot the parallels. Some of the Bible narrative is frighteningly contemporary.




There's a wealth of theological thinking been done on these folks and some of those insights are quite valuable. Given how popular Mary Magdalen is in these post-Dan browne days she seemed like a good character to focus on.

Of course there's debate about how often Mary appears in the gospels. Is she the "scarlet woman" who crashes a party to weep her remorse at Jesus' feet and dry his feet with her hair? Is she sister to Lazarus who waits for Jesus as Bethany? The gospels are overcrowded with Marys.

I just dodged the issue.




I think there's some interesting stuff to be said about a teenage pregnancy and a broken engagement and all the expectations of Jewish culture; which are not the expectations of modern Western culture. Joseph's problem wasn't that Mary was pregnant, it's that she wasn't pregnant by him. It was common and legal for betrothed couples to live together and not formalise their marriage until the first child was conceived.

Likewise there's a lot of weight behind the dynastic implications. Mary is cousin to John the Baptist's mother, who is of the priestly caste. She's a descendant of King David, of royal blood - and so is Jesus' legal father Joseph. The modern gloss of a humble peasant girl doesn't do justice to the complexity of the situation. In some ways Mary is Cinderella, a queen waiting to be revealed.

From a writer's point of view I think the technical problem would be to properly present the cultural and historical information without it becoming a lecture or a sermon. Mary's own journey from confused girl on the brink of womanhood and marriage to an older man to the obedient vessel of God's blessing, then again to the older woman who nags Jesus for good and ill during his ministry and finally to the bereaved mother at the foot of the cross would be a tough one to render.




People here tend to be tolerant - or at least polite. The story's also gained a wider circulation and the other feedback is interesting.

Considering historical events get explored in fiction all the time, I have no issue at with the retelling of a story like this. I agree with you that you can explore things through fiction that you can't through pure fact.

A story like this is an interpretation of a passage in the Bible; the difference between this and a thesis on a book of the Bible is fiction can make you feel the story, meaning you get just as much or more from the story then you would from a academic paper. Plus you don't put people to sleep this way.

I have actually toyed with doing a re-telling of the Christmas Story, but setting it in the future. My thinking is if people read it and are intrigued by the source material, they may want to seek out that source material. I thought of the idea while sitting through yet another re-enactment of the Christmas Story last December (my wife has been teaching at private Christian schools the past 5 years, and I have to go to the Christmas Program each year). Or even if nobody else reads it, it would be a way for me to explore the story further myself.

~Hat~

It certainly helped me get a different perspective on a narrative so familiar as to have become almost neutered.




It's also perhaps less threatening in a "this is what you must believe" kind of way. A reader can approach the meaning of the scripture without having to plunge into a full acceptance right off.




Sounds intriguing. Why the future?

He is easy to identify with. Unless you're a fisherman and then the others might be more so.




Indeed. And proceed.




I suspected as much.

Quote:
Of course there's debate about how often Mary appears in the gospels. Is she the "scarlet woman" who crashes a party to weep her remorse at Jesus' feet and dry his feet with her hair? Is she sister to Lazarus who waits for Jesus as Bethany? The gospels are overcrowded with Marys.

I've never understood the "how dare they suggest Mary Magdalene was a scarlet woman!" deal. It's kinda missing the whole point...

Quote:
I just dodged the issue.

Whimp!

Quote:
Likewise there's a lot of weight behind the dynastic implications. Mary is cousin to John the Baptist's mother, who is of the priestly caste. She's a descendant of King David, of royal blood - and so is Jesus' legal father Joseph. The modern gloss of a humble peasant girl doesn't do justice to the complexity of the situation. In some ways Mary is Cinderella, a queen waiting to be revealed.

That. Or she's also the Christianisation of Aphroditie, or the Earth Goddess, etc etc. Now that would be a challenge. Write Mary from a perspective of "she was just 'created' to keep the bloody pagans happy and alloow them to continue with their earth goddess celebrations."

I'd read it.

Quote:
From a writer's point of view I think the technical problem would be to properly present the cultural and historical information without it becoming a lecture or a sermon. Mary's own journey from confused girl on the brink of womanhood and marriage to an older man to the obedient vessel of God's blessing, then again to the older woman who nags Jesus for good and ill during his ministry and finally to the bereaved mother at the foot of the cross would be a tough one to render.

See I'm thinking of Catholic Mary. She's kinda infallible. I think from a writer's point of view it would be difficult to present her as having human type emotions of regret, anger, loss, fear, betrayal, etc. and have her remain this (let's face it) almost god-type creature herself.

Quote:
People here tend to be tolerant - or at least polite. The story's also gained a wider circulation and the other feedback is interesting.

Really?