| May/June
2006 |

|
|
Douglas Rushkoff, Liam Sharp, et. al,
Testament (Vertigo, 2006).
Monthly. $2.99
by
Beth
Hewitt Serial comics,
Douglas Ruskoff explains, are the ideal media for
telling the “real story of the Bible,” and this is
the project of Testament,
written by Rushkoff and illustrated by Liam Sharp,
which works to translate scripture into graphic form.
His point, however, is not merely to choose a visual
and sequential media to retell the ur-texts of the 3
major monotheistic religions; Testament
is not,
then, like Eric Shanower’s wonderful
Age
of Bronze. Instead Ruskoff
uses the comic to tell two simultaneous “testaments”:
one set in the biblical past and the other set in a
not-so-distant dystopian future, in which the United
States uses sophisticated nanotechnology to track and
draft its citizens into a project of world domination
against the “neonationalists” who oppose this
authority. The parallelism of the storylines is part
of the comic’s larger theoretical agenda, which is to
argue that biblical narratives saturate human culture
across the centuries—that there is, in fact, nothing
new in our contemporary geopolitical situation.
|
|||||

|
|
There is
no subtlety to this message: the comic wants to make
the parallel between old and newest testament
absolutely manifest. So it begins with a striking
representation of Abraham rousing his son to take him
up the mountain for sacrifice, and immediately
following we see a repetition of this same scene
(with the same paneling) as Alan (a scientist who
reluctantly works for the biotechnical company that
manufactures the chips that are tracking and
controlling the nation’s citizens) rouses his own son
Jake on the morning of his sacrifice. Jake had been
spared implantation because he was born in France
(his mother is a French psychologist), where they
don’t routinely implant chips, but his father has
been called (as had Abraham) finally to give up his
son to this larger authority. That this modern
authority is secular is crucial to Rushoff’s larger
argument, which is to refute religious
fundamentalists (of all denominations) who use
biblical scripture as an absolute moral code.
Moreover, the clear wrongness of Alan’s willingness
to give up his son (simply because his employer
requires it) reveals the moral difficulty with Akedah
(Abraham’s sacrifice)—a story that famously is
theologically and textually complicated. Indeed,
while Jews have read the scene as evidence of
Abraham’s covenant with God, Christians read it as an
archetype for God’s ultimate sacrifice of his son
(which, unlike Abraham, he is willing to make) and
conventional Muslim interpretation is that Ibrahim
does sacrifice his first son, Ishmael.
Consequentially, the comic does not merely set up the
old testament in a contemporary scene; no god
intervenes to stop Alan’s hand (although he chooses
not to tag his son), and this compels us to consider
the issue of free will and authority not just in the
context of the contemporary story, but also the
biblical one.
|
|||||