An interesting, if uneven, piece in by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker had this to say about Jesus:
If God he was—not some Hindu-ish avatar or offspring of God, but actually one with God—then God once was born and had dirty diapers and took naps. The longer you think about it, the more astounding, or absurd, it becomes. To be really believed at all, it can only be told again.
Although [x] not [y] but rather [z]. – Michael Gorman
Prof. K., I think you are too generous to characterize Gopnik’s treatment as merely “uneven.” I don’t see that he shows no real sympathy for Mark’s Jesus (and I doubt whether anyone who knows him, least of all his editors, would expect this of him).
Even regarding the quote you cite – I don’t know any legitimate view of the Incarnation that would cause his statement about diapers and naps to be profound. Maybe you were being provocative?
I’ver read the article several times and still don’t understand the last line (in your quote): “To be really believed at all, it can only be told again.” Your thoughts?
Typo:
I don’t see that he shows [any] real sympathy for Mark’s Jesus (and I doubt whether anyone who knows him, least of all his editors, would expect this of him).
Prof Kirk, I went out to mow the lawn and the answer to my question came to me – the reference to the re-telling of the story is a reference to the use of Mark as a source by Matthew and Luke. The quip fell flat for me in part because the baby stories are not Mark’s but part of those re-tellings.
No, I don’t think that’s it John. I think that what he means is that it’s a story that can’t be told without the story, along the lines of this from Flannery O’Connor:
“A story is a way to say something that can’t be said any other way, and it takes every word in the story to say what the meaning is.”