10

Gut: I'm an outcast. GOOD.

Spill: If I were to stay in character as an Essene, I would just run into the wilderness and avoid everything I hate/dislike about the world. However, I am not one. To try and solve the issues of today is useless, but just because you cannot solve them doesn't mean you cannot decrease the world-suck as some people describe it. You cannot change the world by trying to remove yourself from it, but nor can you be of the world to change it.  You are an outcast either way, only your motivation is different. Impacting the world for the better puts your focus on others rather than yourself. The Essenes THE PEOPLE IN THE DORM NEXT TO ME NEED TO STOP USING THE MICROWAVE--IT KEEPS DINGING. STOP EATING. Okay, the Essenes removed themselves from the world with the hope of being saved, but Jesus immersed himself in the world in order to save. You cannot change the world or have an impact by keeping your hands clean; you have to be willing to work with the dirt in the world to make something grow from it. And usually, dirty people are outcasts.

9

Gut: Doing, thinking, and doing thinking

Spill: So we learn by doing and not so much just by thinking.....I'll agree to an extent with that because I am a tactile learner. I haven't learned something until I can do it by myself. This understanding that learning isn't happening unless one is doing makes me think (haha). I'm thinking about doing. So does this mean I am learning from thinking, or will I not learn until I do according to my thinking? WHAT. I did not intend for this to hurt my mind so much; so this will be very brief. Are you not learning when you think things through before you put them into action? Is there not something you learn from just thinking? Maybe it's not just learning from doing; it's the thinking that leads to the doing that really shows we are learning. The thinking behind the doing is what leads to learning? Hmm...the philosophical is something I will never enjoy. I never feel like I've learned anything, just like I've run in circles--and I hate running.

8

Gut: Combining the historical with the fictional without confusing the two

Spill:
Dear Dr. Kratzinger,

Your attention to historical accuracy and your regular critiques kept me from submersing myself into the story of The Shadow of the Galilean. I was reminded at the end of every chapter of the historical purpose of the book tied into the narrative element of it. You constantly brought me back to reality and helped me distinguish and maintain fact from fiction. You continually brought up questions and knowledge that I found helpful when reading, but perhaps the most beneficial thing you brought to The Shadow of the Galilean was your subtle display of how fictitious figures can embody the truth. By demanding I constantly compare my knowledge of the historical Jesus with the fictional image of Him created within the book, I was able to see how the two images complemented each other. Creating fiction around history heightens an understanding of the truth. Fiction allows history to become tangible to the reader, because they are able to relate to it on a more personal level. The shadow of your presence throughout the book helped bring clarity to the shadow of the Galilean.

Yours,
Mary Elizabeth

7

Gut: Innocuous Jesus or innocuous Andreas? I say neither.

Spill: The whole time Andreas is gathering information for Metilius and Pilate about Jesus and the Zealot movement he is concerned with preserving not only his life but also the lives he is supposed to be monitoring. He does not want anyone to come to harm because of his reports, but he also does not want harm to come to himself or his business. Andreas' situation is surely not innocuous for he holds the lives of others in his hands (figuratively through his writing of reports), and Pilate has power over Andreas' life. When Andreas must write a report on Jesus, he plays Jesus off as just another philosopher/poet to prevent the Romans from suspecting him as a revolutionary. This gentle report of Jesus and His teachings is making light of Jesus' movement, but it is also serving to keep Andreas' conscience clean. In the end, I feel both Jesus and Andreas will be exposed. Jesus is going to continue His movement, and the Romans will soon find He is not innocuous as Andreas portrayed Him. Andreas will find himself finally unable to explain his way out of things and forced to choose sides--he cannot remain neutral forever. Andreas' purpose for writing an innocuous report of Jesus is merely to keep himself and his conscience guilt free, but the time is coming where he will no longer be able to remain innocuous himself.

6

Gut: "...--I would rather change my views about Jesus than despise you."

Spill: Perhaps I like this line spoken by Chuza referring to his wife Joanna in The Shadow of the Galilean because I am a girl and find it sweet. But maybe it is more than a husband's love talking. It is possible that before the book comes to a close, Chuza will in fact change his views about Jesus. I am only speculating, but I would like to think he will and that it is not just an empty quote. Also, Barabbas came back on the scene, and he revealed that he has murdered others. This further ties him to the criminal spoken of in the Gospels who was released from custody instead of Jesus. Maybe this book will even portray him as the Barabbas. But so far, Barabbas seems as if he is already a prisoner, held captive by the Zealots and a "Robin Hood mentality" which seems to create as many problems as it solves. Jesus and His followers hold no value on life and do not fear death, but it seems as if Barabbas' own fear of death (from the Zealots) is what is driving him instead of confidence in his own cause. I do not think Barabbas will change his views about Jesus simply becasue he wishes to avoid being despised and killed by the Zealots. Both Chuza and Barabbas have a decision to make (so does Andreas): to follow Jesus or despise Him.   

5

Gut: Words paint the picture of Jesus.

Spill: Who is Jesus (historically, politically, physically, etc.)? Many peolpe throughout "history" have painted, sculpted, and depicted Jesus through other various forms of art in an attempt to portray who He was/is to them (the artist). Some of these images are accepted and others cause controversy or even a comedic response. Well, since I'm sure we will never all agree on a particular physical appearance of Jesus, why keep trying to attach an image to a name? The paparazzis of the first century seem to have failed to get a physical picture of Jesus so why centuries later are we still trying? The artists who have produced images of Jesus had their reasons for depicting Him the way they did, but perhaps their purpose in creating a "physical Jesus"  was merely an expression of their own culture and how they perceived Him--as man or messiah. Stories of His actions and interactions with the people of His day written by people familiar with the culture and the people during Jesus' life give a greater sense of the man/messiah/savior He was/is than a picture created by someone who never saw Him, heard Him speak, or lived in His century.

4

Gut: What's a perspective? It's a perspective.

Spill: Personally, I feel the 4 different perspectives (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) on Jesus' life give it more credibility than all of them matching up precisely the same. If four different people were to give an account of your life, they certainly wouldn't all be the same. Different things are observed by different people, and some things/events aren't remembered with 100% clarity. The fact that each of these accounts is different makes it highly likely they were not all written by the same person or just straight copied. Someone said Jesus is divine or He isn't--there's no other perspective. Well, okay, these four different perspectives point to His divinity in some way or another. Are there other perspectives that say He is merely a man/teacher, of course. There are also ones that will say He never existed at all. In the end, it comes down to the individual and there interpretation of the resources laid before them.

3

Gut: I am about to complain about life and somehow relate it to the purpose of this blog (aka: state a few things you probably already know/won't find interesting/or don't agree with).

Spill: I do not like to write. I hate it. This blog is writing. OH WELL. Anyway, I do not mind reading, so I guess The Shadow of the Galilean will be what I blog about the most--but not today. Today, I am going to complain about writing. I am not excited about a 6 page research paper. I wouldn't mind reading one, but I do not want to write one. After saying that, I will do it anyway (I mean, I want to pass or actually more than just pass). I am going to stay positive about writing as best I can, even though it is so disagreeable to me. Of course this is just my opinion concerning writing, papers, etc., some people like it (English majors?). We are studying (or will be) four different books written about Jesus and events surrounding his life. Anyway, I have been raised to believe these 4 texts and the entire Bible were written by people because they were divinely inspired to do so by God. I'm not sure how one would prove this divine inspiration, but what would faith be without a little faith? However, we don't really know (have hard evidence) that they didn't just write them because they wanted to.  It's not possible for me to write something just because I want to, but if I had a little divine inspiration....who knows!