Prolepsis

Ahmad Atif Ahmad

UC Santa Barbara

When The Great Debater’s Melvin B. Tolson drew an analogy between himself and Jesus, Professor James Farmer objected: “be careful…mental institutions are full of people who confuse themselves with Jesus.”  The obvious inappropriateness in the analogy between a 20^th century American black teacher and activist (Tolson) and Jesus of 1^st century Nazareth consists in the grandiosity of the claim that Tolson can aspire to having an impact on the world similar to that of Jesus’.  The truth is that “Tolson is not similar to Jesus.”  But there is another problem with the analogy between Jesus and Tolson: “Jesus is not similar to Tolson.”  Jesus will not necessarily act like Tolson, just because Tolson thinks that he would.   

In North America, people feel justified to ask about ‘what Jesus would do’ in this or that issue that we face today.  If one can ask the question, one must imagine a possible answer.  But how could one answer this question?  How could one know what Jesus would do in a question of the 20^th or 21^st century?       

There is a word for reading the present into the past: prolepsis.  Prolepsis denotes anticipation.  A proleptic reading of Aristotle, for example, can make him look like a modern liberal, because he said something that could be interpreted to anticipate a modern liberal’s view.  Proleptic readings of Aristotle that make him a modern liberal are bad, because they ignore the obvious fact that Aristotle could not have possibly anticipated the context and concerns of a modern liberal.  Proleptic readings of Aristotle sound naïve to careful readers of Aristotle’s text.  In fact, once the fallacy in a proleptic reading is pointed out, reasonable people stop defending it, because it just sounds stupid to do that.  But somehow proleptic readings of Jesus are different.  Indeed, without these, many preachers would be out of business, since their main job is to find meanings and applications for Jesus’ words in today’s world. 

American politicians have also been in the business of proleptic readings of Jesus.  Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, and of course George Walker did it prolifically.  Jesus has to speak to 21^st century issues, the believers assert.  Yet, Professor Farmer of The Great Debaters is right.  It is problematic to assume that one can be sure about what Jesus would say about one of the concerns of the 20^th or the 21^st century.  It is more problematic to assume that one can be sure what Jesus would say about a 21^st century issue and further assume that one should fulfill this plan on Jesus’ behalf.  It is a short step from confusing oneself with Jesus, and it is kind of insane.

Is Professor Farmer’s insight too obvious to state at the end of 2007?  I do not think so.