Flannery O'Conner: Wise Blood

Flannery O'Connor was born and raised in Savannah, Georgia. After her father died of lupus erythematosus, a rare and fatal autoimmune disease, she and her mother lived alone. She received a general education at Georgia State College for Women and then continued to study creative writing at the University of Iowa. After receiving an M.F.A. degree in 1947, Flannery spent time in an artists' colony in Saratoga Springs, New York, and then with friends in Connecticut. She finished writing Wise Blood in 1950. Later that year, Flannery developed the same disease that had ended her father's life.

Though crippled by lupus, Flannery was able to enjoy a modest lifestyle on her mother's ancestral farm, raising peacocks and writing. Her short stories are collected in A Good Man is Hard to Find, and Other Stories (1955), Everything That Rises Must Converge (1965), and Flannery O'Connor: The Complete Stories published posthumously in 1971. Her only other novel was The Violent Bear it Away (1960).

Flannery O'Connor was a devout Catholic. She approached her work as a novelist and short story writer with a realistic understanding of her audience. The society around her had separated physical fact from spiritual reality and was left without any ground for belief. As Flannery wrote of spiritual experiences, she was careful not to "approach the divine directly," but rather to "penetrate the natural human world as it is." (O'Connor 68) She had a keen ear for common speech and used her observational powers to portray grotesque characters and bizarre situations reflecting man's broken condition.

She explains in one essay entitled "Novelist and Believer" that the comic element in her writing comes out of her sincerity regarding eternal matters. The more serious one is about eternity, the more comical he can become since he is able to see the amusing side of the universe.

Wise Blood illustrates the final days of an intense truth-seeking character named Hazel Motes. Hazel is introduced to the reader as a train passenger on his way to begin a new phase in his life, doing things he has never done before. He came home from the war to find his home desolate and abandoned. All that remained of his family was a collection of haunting memories.

One very clear and influential memory was his circuit-preaching grandfather. The old man preached a Jesus who chased men down like criminals and redeemed sinners against their will. Hazel believed that he could escape Jesus by avoiding sin, until the day he convinced himself sin was nonexistent.

Throughout the body of Wise Blood, Hazel's one desire is to manifest his unbelief in a radically blasphemous lifestyle. He commences his time in the city of Taulkinham by finding a whore, not for enjoyment, but simply to pile up alleged sins while asserting his inward cleanliness to himself and to the world.

Hazel meets some important characters during his wanderings on the street. The first is a pitiful eighteen-year-old named Enoch Emery, in search of love and kindness. Hazel responds to Enoch in spite and indifference, but the boy continues to follow him believing that some good will result. Enoch lives compulsively, controlled by the "wise blood" coursing through his veins.

While evading Enoch, Hazel pursues the town's blind preacher, Asa Hawks. Hazel expects to tear the preacher up with jibes and arguments, but Hawks is no longer the kind of man to care about Hazel's words or his soul. Two bags of guilt weigh down Hawk's previous religious enthusiasm and now he lives by swindling money like a common fraud. His illegitimate daughter, Sabbath, mistakes the intensity in Hazel's face as the capacity to love. She also follows him, hoping for something good.

Hazel begins a short preaching career promoting the Church without Christ on the streets of Taulkinham. He declares that there is no ultimate truth and advocates denial of Jesus and conscience. He fails to realize that he preaches to an apathetic audience. Nobody cares about losing Jesus since no one has Jesus to begin with.

One stranger tries to use Hazel's doctrine as a way to earn money. He even hires a prophet to dress up like Hazel and join him in preaching the "Holy Church of Christ without Christ." Hazel finds this hypocritical prophet and runs him over in disgust. Running from the crime scene, he is stopped by a policeman who is ignorant of the murder. Finding that Hazel has no license, the cop pushes his dilapidated vehicle over the side of an embankment. Hazel walks three hours back into town, buys some lime, and blinds himself.

It is difficult to determine Hazel's belief system at the end of his life. The reader shares the confusion of his landlady as she peers into his blinded eyes to discover something hidden from her. Hazel says very little to her, but walks days on end with gravel and glass lining his shoes, and barbed wire wrapped about his chest. He says that he is paying; he is unclean.

You only addressed the second part, not the issue of where they'd get the idea Jesus rose from the dead in the first place.

As regards the second part, it doesn't fit with how we know religious fanatics with authority act. A Jewish Grand Inquisitor would try to root out any trace of heresy just as much as a Christian one would. And we know a particular Jewish Grand Inquisitor did go to great lengths to stop the troublemakers before becoming a notable troublemaker himself. And besides him, there are early Jewish anti-Christian polemics that have come down to us, so obviously Christians were important enough to at least write against. In fact, some of the details in the Gospels were included to refute these polemics, which means that at least some of the Jews paid attention to Christianity very early. Which leads back to the question: why not just produce the body and put a stop to it?

Even if it was all written down after the witnesses were dead, it just doesn't make sense for it to be an invention. Unless all Christians signed on to the invention at once, there would have been "non-resurrectionist" Christians. At least at first, they would've been the majority. Why aren't there records of them? And don't say their works were lost or destroyed: most of modern knowledge of the Gnostics comes from anti-Gnostic polemics. The New Testament itself contains anti-Judaizer polemics (Galatians, for example). Now, there is a polemic passage about the resurrection in Scripture, I Corinthians 15. But it's a polemic for an eschatological resurrection based on the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of Christ was a given.

Among Christians, the resurrection has never been a new doctrine. Belief in the resurrection goes back as far as Christianity, regardless of when you think the NT was written.

The earliest NT fragments are from the late first century. Unless the earliest were from the autographs (highly unlikely, of course), they go back further. I find nothing unlikely about the texts' own claims that there were witnesses still alive.

Even if there weren't, at some point the doctrine was introduced, and not into a vacuum. If there weren't people who were in Jerusalem when things when down, there would have been non-resurrectionist Christians (as I pointed out above) and anti-Christians who would have seen the change in doctrine. If they saw any such change in doctrine, they never said anything about it.

All of which leads back to the question, where did belief in the resurrection come from, and if it's false why didn't someone either produce the body, point out there never was such a person as Jesus, point out the fact that the doctrine was just invented, or use any of the other conclusive counter-arguments that would've been there if the alternatives to the reality of the resurrection were true?

There were non-resurrectionist Christians... they're called Jews. They thought when Jesus said he was the Messiah that he would be helping them overturn Roman rule. So they followed him. Then he was killed. They returned to Judaism.

As for producing a body, as I said, the numbers of followers were small. !2 disciples, a few women... those who were only following him because they thought he was there to free them from the Romans would have expected that God wouldn't let him be killed. When he was, they figured, "oh, he's not the one. Bummer." and went back to Judaism. I still maintain that in the immediate years after, those who remained together as "Christ followers" weren't enough of a force to be reckoned with. You yourself admit that the NT wasn't written till the end of the 1st century.

You mentioned a lot of things from the NT, but there is so much there that makes no sense I wouldn't be able to just accept any of it without tryng to reconcile it with common sense. For intance, remember that according to the NT, the disciples didn't recognize Jesus when he supposedly reappeared 40 days later. Doesn't this sound a bit peculiar? Also, remember that before he left he said "there are those among you alive today who will not taste death before the kingdom of God returns with power." If we have 2000 year old disciples tottering around, I wish they'd present themselves.

No, I'm sorry, I've read a lot of the legends and myths of other cultures and they all have this same nonsensical, dreamlike, rambling quality.

Just for laughs, I once read a book by some German guy called "Jesus Lived in India" claiming that Jesus didn't die on the cross at all, that crucifixion wasn't always "to the death" and that to die after only 3 hours when your legs aren't broken is not likely. He thinks that the "vinegar" with which they moistened his lips just before he cried out and lost consciousness wasn't vinegar at all, because vinegar is meant to revive someone, not make them pass out. He thinks it was some drug that the Essenes made with their herbal knowledge. He further claims that Jesus was taken down still alive, which is why he reappeared 40 days later and hung around for a while before taking off for India. (Apparently legend in India has it that Jesus came there and they have spots that they say he lived, etc.)

It's an interesting idea and would certainly explain a lot. I don't really care either way, though. If you want to believe in legends, go ahead. Since nothing happens when you die but death, you have nothing to lose except your right to think instead of blindly believing whatever text is presented to you first.

I have to admit I'm disappointed with your latest reply. I didn't expect one would persuade the other, but something of a serious exchange would be nice.

This is some very bad history. Jesus was on the list of "possibles", but He was never recognized by the Sanhedrin or mainstream Judaism. They didn't "go back" because they never left. Certainly the Gospels portray Jesus as being a critic on the outside, not a temporal leader, and the earliest mention of Jesus in Roman records is in an account of the persecution of Christians in the city of Rome itself. The Romans certainly took notice of Bar Kochba in his lifetime.

As for producing a body, as I said, the numbers of followers were small. !2 disciples, a few women...

Plus a few hundred more people, at least one high-ranking defection...

The Jewish authorities obviously paid enough attention to persecute them, which, to me at least, would involve a little more effort than digging up a body.

I still maintain that in the immediate years after, those who remained together as "Christ followers" weren't enough of a force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately for Stephen, the authorities didn't agree.

You yourself admit that the NT wasn't written till the end of the 1st century.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a charitable explaination for that line. Not only did I admit no such thing, I said the exact opposite. The earliest fragments were from the late first century (already before the end of it), which means that the texts themselves were written earlier (unless you think we have the autographs). Were you just extremely sloppy in your reading? Or is it a deliberate twisting? Both seem hard to credit. My point was pretty clear, and it's hard to see what gain you could hope for with an easily exposed lie, unless you thought the phrase "you yourself admit" is so powerful it doesn't matter if I actually said it or not.

You mentioned a lot of things from the NT, but there is so much there that makes no sense I wouldn't be able to just accept any of it without tryng to reconcile it with common sense.

Good grief. I mentioned two of Paul's letters, both times to make a point other than the one Paul was making. I'm deliberately avoiding just saying the Bible says so and that's that.

I have to admit I'm disappointed with your latest reply. I didn't expect one would persuade the other, but something of a serious exchange would be nice.

Well, I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I didn't find what you said convincing at all. You seem convinced that early Christians were persecuted because they were a threat. I suspect they were more of a nuisance.

This is some very bad history. Jesus was on the list of "possibles", but He was never recognized by the Sanhedrin or mainstream Judaism.

I didn't say that he was, I said that some people probably followed him around, and when he died, they went back to whatever it was that folks like that do. You forget, this is small town stuff. He was probably sort of like some of those itinerant (sp?) preachers who show up in odd places here and there, spouting stuff, and if he got a bit of a following, he started to get on the local government officials' nerves. Likely they had folks like that offed pretty regularly.

As for producing a body, as I said, the numbers of followers were small. !2 disciples, a few women... Plus a few hundred more people, at least one high-ranking defection...

According to whom?

The Jewish authorities obviously paid enough attention to persecute them, which, to me at least, would involve a little more effort than digging up a body.

Obviously his followers weren't the problem. HE was the problem. And we have no proof that people were running around 3 days later yelling "he lives, he lives!" If the local authorities didn't bother producing a body, they must not have seen a need.

Unfortunately for Stephen, the authorities didn't agree.

Again, if someone becomes a nuisance, off with them. I really don't know how or why you have convinced yourself that this is the smoking gun, this lack of evidence from the Bible that the authorities had Jesus stuffed and mounted near the gates of the city. Like that information would be in the Bible even if it were recorded.

Were you just extremely sloppy in your reading?

I guess. When I'm dealing with people who I think are a little nuts, I don't really put much heart in it. I know that's not very nice, but think about it. Suppose someone came up to you and said "I am Napoleon." And started arguing with you about how he was Napoleon, and ran a bunch of French history by you, lots of war lingo, etc etc... You may be forced to concede that they know more about French history than you, but that doesn't change the fact that they believe in something that is nonsense, so they are frankly, nuts. How much effort would you put into arguing with this person to convince him he wasn't Napoleon?

You seem convinced that early Christians were persecuted because they were a threat. I suspect they were more of a nuisance.

Fine. They were a nuisance.

The authorities still didn't end the nuisance the easy way.

I didn't say that he was, I said that some people probably followed him around, and when he died, they went back to whatever it was that folks like that do.

Except, you did say it. "There were non-resurrectionist Christians... they're called Jews." Either way, it doesn't address my point. Anyone who left after Jesus was crucified simply ceased to be a Christian. He did not become a Christian who didn't believe in the resurrection. Your point in 83 is still wrong.

You forget, this is small town stuff.

Jerusalem was a significant regional city, not a small town.

Obviously his followers weren't the problem. HE was the problem. And we have no proof that people were running around 3 days later yelling "he lives, he lives!"

Even deliberately throwing out the Bible's statements as proof, we do have evidence they thought it not long after the event. Namely, nothing else makes the least sense for explaning the origin or Christianity. Your rather weak efforts confirm this. The question is then, where did the body go?

If the local authorities didn't bother producing a body, they must not have seen a need.

Or maybe they didn't have it.

And here we reach a legitimate "they themselves admitted", because they really did admit it. They said the Christians stole the body. The empty tomb is a historical fact.

You seem not to have noticed, but your whole model collides with the facts. It is a historical fact that Jesus' tomb was empty. It is a historical fact that the Christians were important enough to the Jews (your ignorant, admittedly nonserious speculations almost 2000 years later notwithstanding; unlike you, they were on the ground when it happened) to persecute them. Whether they felt threatened or annoyed is irrelivant: they were motivated to destroy Christianity. It's a historical fact that they did things harder and less effective than just producing the body, because the body wasn't there. So where did it go?

Again, if someone becomes a nuisance, off with them.

Again, your distinction between a threat and a nuisance means exactly nothing. The motive, whatever it was, was obviously there. The means was not.

I really don't know how or why you have convinced yourself that this is the smoking gun, this lack of evidence from the Bible that the authorities had Jesus stuffed and mounted near the gates of the city. Like that information would be in the Bible even if it were recorded.

If they'd stuffed and mounted Jesus, we wouldn't be have this discussion, would we? But we are having this discussion.

If that isn't a smoking gun, why all the effort to avoid confronting the fact? If someone tells me a bunch of 7th (I think it was 7th) century Arabs thought there was a prophet in their midst and that their enemies had too little political and military acument to stop them, I'd say "yep" and my worldview would be unshaken. But Jesus is different, isn't He?

Okay, it's like this, and I will give it to you straight: people don't come back from the dead. I know you have embraced an intriguing legend because you like it, but that's all it is. People don't come back from the dead. Either his body was removed or he wasn't dead in the first place.

I suspect that if indeed there was such a man as Jesus and the crucifixion did indeed take place, he wasn't dead when they took him down. His legs weren't broken, he didn't suffocate on the cross like those whose legs were broken did, because he could hold himself up.

It would explain the pattern of running blood on the shroud of Turin. It would explain why nobody saw him for some 40 days after the disappearance: he was recovering from his wounds with the Essenes. It would explain why his disciples didn't recognize him when they saw him, he probably had lost a great deal of weight.

It would also explain why he got the heck out of the area as soon as he was strong enough: he was still wanted by the authorities.

There. Either that, or his body was indeed stolen by grief-stricken followers. It certainly isn't impossible, stoned hippies steal Jim Morrison's headstone in Pere Lachaise cemetery every few years. (Too stoned to dig, I guess.)

The difference between your approach and mine is this: we both hear a recounting of an event that we know doesn't happen in real life. You alter real life to explain the event. I apply real life to the event. Now, really, if you can't except that, then accept this:

If we can't find a body, he must be alive! There's no other possible explanation! Halelluia! Have fun at Waterloo Theme park, Napoleon. Good bye!

Okay, it's like this, and I will give it to you straight: people don't come back from the dead.

You're bringing your presuppositions to the event.

...

It would explain why nobody saw him for some 40 days after the disappearance: he was recovering from his wounds with the Essenes. It would explain why his disciples didn't recognize him when they saw him, he probably had lost a great deal of weight.

But it didn't take 40 days. 40 days was when He left altogether, for Heaven. He showed up on the same day he rose. Two people didn't recognize Him. Just two, not all of them.

Of course, I got that from the Bible. You got your stuff from nowhere at all.

Now the big question: if Jesus was still alive, why didn't the authorities say so? Why did they invent the slander you repeat below?

Stoned hippies take a headstone, therefore the disciples might have taken the body? How? There were guards.

And remember, most of them died for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, why? Whatever they might have hoped for by creating a fraud like that, they didn't get it.

If we can't find a body, he must be alive! There's no other possible explanation! Halelluia! Have fun at Waterloo Theme park, Napoleon. Good bye!

Why do the heathen rage?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.