In her review of Philip Pullman's The Goodman Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, Jeanette Winterson's subtitle in the Times is "Pullman’s retelling of the life of Jesus is a poor substitute for the King James Bible".
Later on it says:
"All of Jesus’s miracles in the Gospels are an affront to literalness — the dead are raised, the blind see — and an invitation towards energy, creativity and the possibility of a different order."
An affront to literalness? Has she not met any Evangelicals?
Later on it says:
"All of Jesus’s miracles in the Gospels are an affront to literalness — the dead are raised, the blind see — and an invitation towards energy, creativity and the possibility of a different order."
An affront to literalness? Has she not met any Evangelicals?
Comments
I might not be a fan of his writing but this is excellent.