Jesus Christ Superstar?

[pnewton]

The USCCB’s web site review comes as no big surprise, given the age in which our lot is sadly cast. We live at a time of unprecedented spiritual declension and lowered public opinion when the spirit of the age has, in truth, infilitrated the Church, causing it to abandon its once austere practice of the Faith and to be befouled by all manner of worldliness and compromise… Why any God fearing Catholic would wish to watch this impious musical when one of its co-writers can utter such blasphemy, is beyond belief.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

And I do not understand how you can wish peace while unloading such scorching judgmentalism based on nothing but** your personal opinion against me, others who watch this musical and Holy Mother Church. I am a faithful Catholic and one thing I do soundly reject are those so stuck in their own **view of what the Faith is that they attack the Church and the bishops.

 

[Portrait]

I think your subsequent posts make more point all the more clear. Pointing out logically fallacies is not moral relativism. That term too is used as an umbrella for a number of boogeymen that have nothing to do with moral relatvism.

Dear pnewton,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above reply.

Employing the logical error of* petitio principii* line of reasoning is only appropriate in those instances where such reasoning is genuinely applicable, e.g., the Protestant error of resting biblical inspiration upon the testimony of the bible itself. Now that is a genuine case of begging the question, since they take for granted the very fact which they propose to prove.

However, in the case of JCS such an argument is wholly inadmissable because the evidence against this despicable musical, from a Catholic orthodox standpoint, is so manifestly obvious, except to those, that is, who have some particular theory/agenda to uphold. For example, old religious thought-forms do not square with the world as modern youth has been taught to view it, hence JCS is an ideal artistic medium because it is ‘relevant’ and chimes in with popular youth culture. That is it is blasphemous and irreverent can be just quitely ignored, provided it arouses the interest of today’s youth in the Gospel and causes them to make an honest investigation of the claims of Christ. Now this ‘ends justifies the means’ reasoning, so beloved by secular trendy types, is against the whole spirit of traditional orthodox Catholicism and thus ought to be abandoned forthwith by those who habitually resort to it. It is nothing more than a flabby accommodation to worldly wisdom.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

And I do not understand how you can wish peace while unloading such scorching judgmentalism based on nothing but** your personal opinion against me, others who watch this musical and Holy Mother Church. I am a faithful Catholic and one thing I do soundly reject are those so stuck in their own **view of what the Faith is that they attack the Church and the bishops.

Dear pnewton,

Hello again.

As I stated previously, dear friend, my negative appraisal of JCS is based not upon personal opinion but upon indisputable evidence. Now I am aware that it is precisely this assertion that you take issue with, but I am, nevertheless, bound to say that I feel that you have succumbed to the relativistic outlook of our times with its intense dislike of dogmatism. The prevailing orthodoxy is ‘live and let live’ and ‘what is true and obvious to you may not be true and obvious to me, so what right do you have to impose your beliefs upon me, my good fellow?’ Needless to say, in this sort of climate, any man who claims to speak the truth respecting a particular issue (even if he does adduce weighty evidence in support of his convictions), will be fortunate if he escapes the accusation of being a bigot, however learned, earnest and humble he may be. Why, if you listen to some men talk, they almost appear to be saying that humility excludes conviction and the arrogant attempt to convert others to one’s own viewpoint.

Our Lord promised to preserve the Church from teaching error in matters appertaining to Divine faith and morals, not from preserving it from worldliness and ‘Laodicean’ lukewarmness or a ‘Catholicism Lite’. These things quite rightly deserve severe censure because they are impeding the mission of the Church by dettering men from assuming the mantel of our most holy Faith.

As it is may custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends, I will bid you farewell for now. Have an enjoyable weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Hate to say this again, but source? I know of the first quote, but I’d like to see a source for the second quote.

Dear patrick457,

Cordial greetings, dear friend.

The Tim Rice quote is from Pop Goes the Gospel, Eds. John Blanchard, Peter Anderson and Derek Cleave (Evangelical Pess 1983). Unfortunately they do not provide a source for that particular quote, stating only that it is from an interview that Mr. Rice gave on an American radio station. However, quite crucially it repeats virtually the same blasphemous words respecting Christ being seen as man and not as God as those found in Time. Quite honestly, I do not see any convincing reason for questioning their veracity or genuiness, as I do not believe that the authors, who are highly respected within the Evangelical community here in the UK, would have stooped to the level of ‘cherry-picking’, and certainly not downright fabrication. In any event, the citation from Time is damning enough alone - “It happens that we don’t see Christ as God”.

So again I must ask, why would any devout Catholic wish to see a rock-opera that was co-authored by a man who rejected the Divinty of Christ, a cardinal verity of our Faith, indeed the cardinal verity? This is hardly surprising when you consider that both Mr. Rice and Mr. Lloyd Webber admitted to being atheists at the time of writting this musical - “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil” (St. Matt. 12: 34,35). The fountain within overflows in the words (or writings) of men, showing the internal state of their hearts and whether those hearts are filled with good or evil, light or darkness.

Goodbye for now to you and all other contributors to this thread, may you have an enjoyable weekend, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Gordon_Sims]

So again I must ask, why would any devout Catholic wish to see a rock-opera that was co-authored by a man who rejected the Divinty of Christ, a cardinal verity of our Faith, indeed the cardinal verity?

St. Paul had a teensy little habit of persecuting Christians at the time of his conversion. I’m supposing that invalidates any messages he preached. Have a great weekend. Try not to get worried, and try not to turn on to problems that upset you.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

For the benefit of “the many” (in the Biblical sense ) I’d do a little analysis here of each music in JCS.

These analyses of yours are great. I look forward to the rest of them, Patrick!

Personally, I never really like the distinction some make between “pre-Vatican II” and “post-Vatican II” as if the Church that existed in both times are different entities. I mean, we might as well distinguish between the pre- and post-Tridentine Church, or pre- and post-Nicaea, pre- and post-Vatican I, or pre- and post-Jerusalem.

Thank you! I couldn’t agree more passionately. This distinction is a dangerous, divisive, and useless one. I suppose legitimate theologians could do something interesting and useful with it, but generally only ideologues with an ax to grind (whether traditionalist or modernist) make that distinction - of which I’m always deeply suspicious - in the first place.

Many Catholics regard JCS as an immensely moving, eloquently serious and thoroughly legitimate and respectful effort to communicate the Gospel in the language and idiom of pop and youth culture. Unfortunately, such persons are gravely mistaken and misguided because this profane rock opera blasphemously presents our Blessed Lord as “just a man”, seen through the eyes of the traitor, Judas.

There are some problems with that assertion:

(a) The characters who assert that Jesus is “just a man” are, in context, clearly struggling to convince themselves of that. Mary Magdalene, for instance, attempts to calm herself in “I Don’t Know How to Love Him” by reassuring himself that Jesus is just a man, but then the way she launches back into her anxieties in the next verse reveals that she has utterly failed to convince herself of this obvious falsehood.

(b) While JCS does portray the story of the Passion of the Lord from Judas’ perspective, that doesn’t mean that it portrays Judas’ perspective as correct. On the contrary, Judas sings, “Every time I look at you I don’t understand why you let the things you did get so out of hand. You’d have managed better if you’d had it planned” (The Last Supper, Superstar).

Elsewhere Judas emphasizes the same point: that Jesus is getting himself into deep trouble and is too reckless to notice it. But the musical reveals that Judas’ assumptions are wrong in the song Gethsemane, in which Jesus reveals that he has known all along exactly what will happen to him.

So what JCS gives us are characters (Judas, Mary Magdalene, Pontius Pilate) who struggle unsuccessfully to convince themselves that there’s nothing special about Jesus. Judas almost admits that he was wrong - that perhaps Jesus knew what he was doing all along - in the song Superstar.

 

[patrick457]

These analyses of yours are great. I look forward to the rest of them, Patrick!

Thank you!

What’s the Buzz/Strange Thing Mystifying

What’s the Buzz seems to conflate the following sayings/events from the Gospels:

Why should you want to know?" - John 21:22?
“Don’t you mind about the future” - Matthew 6:25-34
“Why are you obsessed with fighting / times and fates you can’t defy?” - Acts 1:7?
“Mary that is good / while you prattle through your supper” Luke 7:44-47; cf. Luke 10:41-42 (based on the line “She alone has tried to give me / what I need right here and now”)

The disciples-minus-Judas’ repetitive chorus (“What’s the buzz / tell me what’s-a-happening…”/“When do we ride into Jerusalem”), somewhat reminiscent of a Greek chorus, makes the point that they are a kind of homogeneous entity - having a crowd who share a single actantial role speak with one voice is a common Bible motif - and serves to underscore their geenral ‘foolishness’, their lack of comprehension at what was going on.

The foolishness and blindness of the disciples is a running theme in the Gospel of Mark which is unique to that Gospel. Far from being the venerable, saintly bearded old men with halos that later generations have portrayed them, Mark has a less flattering picture of the disciples in general. They are a slow, even buffoonish bunch who doesn’t really comprehend what Jesus says and does, even given their privileged positions. I quote from another post of mine:

Mark starts off his portrayal of them pretty well: for instance, when Jesus calls His disciples, they obediently follow, leaving behind everything to follow Him (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 3:13-18). But aside from a handful of places where the disciples shine, everything goes downhill from there.

• In chapter 4:11-20, Jesus tells His disciples of their privileged position in that “the mystery/secret of the kingdom of God” is plainly revealed to them, while those outside everything is said in parables. Immediately after saying this, He starts rebuking them: “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?” (v. 13) and goes on to explain the parable of the sower. In the Matthean parallel (13:1-23), by contrast, no rebuke is present, instead Jesus actually commends the disciples! (v. 16-17) “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” No rebuke in the Lukan version as well (8:1-15).
• At the onset of evening, Jesus decides to cross the other shore of the Sea of Galilee, and they all set off by boat. In typical Markan fashion, the narrator briefly mentions other boats that set off with Jesus’. You probably know the rest: they encounter a storm, the disciples panic, and Jesus calms the sea (14:35-41). We’re going to note here two things: in Mark’s version, the disciples tell Jesus bluntly: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (4:38; cf. Matthew 8:24 “Save us, Lord; we are perishing”; Luke 8:24 “Master, Master, we are perishing!”), and Jesus answers them: “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (4:40; cf. Matthew 8:26 “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?”; Luke 8:25 “Where is your faith?”)
• In an interesting little detail in Mark, as the hemorrhaging woman touches Jesus’ garment as they were on their way to Jairus’ house (5:24b-34), there is a little exchange between Jesus and disciples:

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”

This is absent in the Matthean parallel (9:18-26), while Luke (8:42b-48) has a slightly different version (v. 45-46):

And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.”
​

 

[patrick457]

• Just after Jesus feeds five thousand men and walks on water (6:30-51), Mark has this ominous note: “And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” The Matthean parallel (14:22-33; Luke does not include the event) does not have this; instead Matthew has a more positive ending: “And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.””
• Leaving Dalmanutha (cf. 8:10-13), the disciples forgot to bring bread with them on the boat, and Jesus starts warning them of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (v. 14-21): …]

Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples is interesting: “Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” This hearkens back to chapter 4, where Jesus says that for outsiders “everything is in parables, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, / and may indeed hear but not understand, / lest they should turn and be forgiven.” (v. 11b-12) In effect, the disciples, to whom “the mystery of the Kingdom of God” is revealed, are apparently no better than those outside because of their slow comprehension. No rebuke is present in the Lukan parallel (12:1), while Matthew’s version is in many ways softer than Mark’s (16:5-12): …]

• Immediately after Peter’s confession of Jesus (8:27-30) - to which “he strictly charged them to tell no one about him”, Jesus starts to speak of His own Passion (v. 31-33)] …]

Notably, the absence of any mention of Jesus’ acceptance of Peter’s confession here, as in Matthew (16:17-19) kind of makes the rebuke stronger. Also note the mention of Jesus “turning and seeing his disciples.” Again, Luke does not include any rebuke of Peter in his version (9:18-22).

• After the Transfiguration, Jesus warns Peter, James and John “to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Mark goes on: “So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean.” (9:9-10; cf. Matthew 17:9-10; Luke 9:36)
• Immediately afterwards, we come to a whole pericope about Jesus healing a possessed boy which the other disciples had failed to heal (9:14-29). We’ll only going to note the conclusion (v. 28-29):

And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

In true Matthean fashion (17:14-21), Matthew’s Jesus uses the disciples’ question as a vehicle to point out their being “of little faith” *[instead of Mark’s more damning "no faith"] (there it is again!), and goes on about the saying about even how faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains. Luke simply ends his version (9:37-43) with: “And all were astonished at the majesty of God.” (v. 43)
​

 

[patrick457]

• After foretelling once more His impending death and resurrection, Jesus et al. come to Capernaum (for the last time in Mark; 9:33-40).

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Both Matthew (18:1-4) and Luke (9:46-48) have slightly different, shorter parallels:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Both Mark (9:38-40) and Luke (9:49-50) then follow it with John noting someone who uses Jesus’ Name in his exorcisms.

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”

John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

• On another occasion, James and John requests to Jesus that they be seated in the places of honor - His right and left - in His glory (10:35-44). A slightly harsher version than the Matthean parallel, where their mother does it for them (20:20-28).

By the end of the Gospel, all of the male disciples have abandoned Jesus. Judas had sold information about Him (14:10-11), Peter denied even knowing Him (14:66-72), while the rest - including a mysterious young man - ran away (14:50-51). This leaves only the women who followed Jesus - the first time they crop up in the narrative! - brave enough to watch Jesus suffering at His final moments, to see where His corpse is buried, and to visit His tomb (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2).

Even then, what they do seems to be a dubious honor, as they watch Jesus die “from a distance,” and the Gospel proper ends with them apparently not (yet) delivering the young man in white’s message that Jesus has been raised up to the male disciples (16:6-7). “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (16:8) In this dark note, the only glimmer of hope is the young man’s/angel’s words: “There [in Galilee] you will see him, just as he told you.” But as we mentioned, Mark apparently finishes (or breaks off) before we even get to see it.​

The article I’ve been linking for ages now (seriously, y’all must be tired of it, ain’t ya? ) summarizes it better than I do:

[28] Another significant motif in Mark’s narrative is the misunderstanding and blindness of the disciples. In Jewison and Bragg’s Jesus Christ Superstar, the apostles are portrayed as misunderstanding and blind characters. Judas, who acts as a sort of narrator in this movie, warns Jesus that his followers are all blind. As he warned, the conflict between Jesus and the apostles occurs when they misunderstand Jesus, dreaming violent revolt against the Roman government and pursuing the glorious rewards.

…]

([29]) Jewison and Bragg portray this conflict between them by means of Jesus’ face. Until the scene of “Hosanna,” Jesus blesses the crowd with a bright smile on his face. But when Simon Zealot and the crowd ask Jesus to get involved in their dream, the smile on his face is gone and never comes back till the end of the movie.

[30] The disciples and the crowd are obsessed with “the power and the glory,” which is far from what Jesus has in mind. Jewison and Bragg highlight this contrast through the scene of “Simon Zealot.” Jesus stands in the middle of the disciples and the crowd, and they dance frantically circling around and shouting “the power and the glory” to Jesus. Nonetheless, the face of Jesus shows that he is embarrassed, perplexed and even gloomy.

[31] The misunderstanding and blindness of the disciples can also be found in their pursuing glory and honour in Mark’s narrative. Jesus teaches them the way of humility and servanthood (Mark 10:43-45). They do not understand it, but seek the way of power and glory, lording over others (Mark 9:33-34; 10:35-41). The apostles are portrayed the same in Jewison and Bragg’s Jesus Christ Superstar. Despite Jesus’ teaching on the true way to victory, they still seek the way of glory being remembered for ever:

Then when we retire, we can write the Gospels,

So they’ll still talk about us when we’ve died (“The Last Supper”)​

 

[patrick457]

Also, some have noted a similarity between the back-and-forth style of conversation between Jesus and disciples and the huge emphasis on “where I’m going” at this point with the discourses of John 13-17.

Tim Rice takes all these passages together from different contexts and puts them into a new one, and to some extent, it works. Jesus’ teachings on anxiety, for instance, now refers to the foreordained events in which Jesus’ destiny (unsuspected by the disciples) is about to be played out. He Himself seems sullen and introverted under the weight of it.

After these exchanges between Jesus and disciples, Mary of Magdala offers to “cool down His face a bit.” Now there seemed to have been a slight controversy over the line when the concept album first came out in 1970 because some people thought that there was some sexual innuendo here (that Ian Gillan - the original Jesus of the concept album - of Deep Purple fame did his rock wailing at this point did not help). But in context, it seems more proper to think that an anointing is meant here, and so it is portrayed in most productions that I know of.

A little trivia here. I just read that in the original draft, this song is supposed to take place in Simon the Leper’s house: there was supposed to be an introduction where Simon greets all the disciples by name one-by-one as they enter his home. The following song, Everything’s Alright, was then originally conceived of as a duet between Mary of Bethany, who anoints Jesus (John 12:1-8; cf. Matthew 26:6-12; Mark 14:3-9) - Mary Magdalene having not made it yet - and Martha.

Eventually, however, Martha was struck out as a character and Mary of Bethany is conflated with Mary of Magdala in conformance with traditional (at least for circa 1400 years) Western thinking, which treats Mary of Bethany, Mary of Magdala, the ‘sinful woman’ of Luke, and the woman caught in adultery as the same person. Now the line: “Mary that is good / while you prattle through your supper” and following seems to be a curious survival from earlier drafts where ‘Mary’ was still Mary of Bethany.

Here again Rice places various bits of Gospel narratives in new contexts: Jesus contrasts Mary (Magdalene) with the disciples, in place of Martha in Luke. Whereas the disciples, slow as they are, are filled with delusions of grandeur and their own ambitions - of which Jesus is but a means of fulfilling, Mary leaves such windy talk to them and shows genuine kindness for Jesus. And in this she (like Mary of Bethany in Luke 10) has grasped the true meaning of discipleship.

Finally, I’d point out something about the way the song is handled in the films. In the 1973 film, Jesus and the disciples are shown in an underground cavern at this point (Beit Guvrin, ancient Eleutheropolis): Ted Neeley is positioned as such that light shining through a hole in the ground falls down on him - and him alone, in effect forming a sort of spotlight on Jesus. The foolishness of the disciples seems to be accentuated by their frantic, almost silly dance (that kind of makes them look like they have epileptic seizures! ).

 

[patrick457]

We now go off to Strange Thing Mystifying. Judas begins to voice his disillusionment with Jesus and His association “with women of her kind” (so in the concept album, the 1973 and 2000 films; for some reason it was apparently altered to “on such a concubine” in some productions), fearing that Jesus’ enemies could use it as an excuse “to put us all away” (which is a bit of over-reaction on Judas’ part IMHO). In this Judas takes the place of those who criticize Jesus for associating with sinners in the Gospel as being unbecoming for His reputation - based on the context, one of the closest parallel is Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:39):

“To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another,

“‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’

For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”

Simon and Judas notably voice the same concern: is Jesus being inconsistent?

Judas’ line implies that Tim Rice employed the purely-Western idea of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. As we’ve mentioned, since the late 6th century, Mary Magdalene has been identified in the West as an adulteress and repentant prostitute. Pope St. Gregory the Great made a speech in 591 where he seemed to combine the actions of three women mentioned in the New Testament (Mary of Bethany, the sinful woman who anoints Jesus in Luke 7, and Mary Magdalene). From this, plus the statement that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2), has risen the tradition that she had been a prostitute before she met Jesus. The Greek Fathers and the Eastern Churches to this day, however, recognize each of these women to be all separate persons: Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala have separate feastdays.

Judas’ accusation provides a paraleipsis at this point. Again, minor trivia: the original line is “let her stroke you, kiss your hair,” but in the 1973 film Carl Anderson sings it “let her kiss you, stroke your hair.” Now the way the line is sung in the 1970 version have also helped fuel the concern that the creators have Mary doing something more risque here.

But at any rate: the description here seems also to be based on Luke 7. There the woman bathes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wiping them off with her hair, then kissing His feet ("You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet"), and finally smearing ointment on it. Rice has simplied the process: here Mary kisses/strokes His hair rather than kissing His feet and wiping them with her hair.

 

[patrick457]

Jesus then rebukes Judas. Once again Rice skips to a different event and draws from it: the infamous story of the woman caught in adultery, aka the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11), which has so long puzzled scholars because it is not found in many early copies of John, although it is in line with many stories in the Gospels and thus probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also). Here, the reply is now directed at Judas: Jesus points out Judas’ hypocrisy in criticizing Mary. Judas may think that he is more ‘enlightened’ than the others, but Jesus reveals it for what it is: just wishful thinking.

He then turns to the disciples and impatiently complains about their shallowness and hardness of heart. Once again, the Markan motif of the blindness of the disciples (and by extension, everyone else) rears up its head.

“Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” (Mark 8:17b-18; cf. 4:11b-12)

“O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you?” (Mark 9:19)

Because of this blindness of heart, not one of them “knows or cares if I come or go.” The disciples (again with the notable exception of Judas, as the libretto notes) vehemently deny it, in a foreshadowing - there it is again! - of their pledges of loyalty to Jesus in the Last Supper (which of course they would not fulfill). But even if Judas keeps silent, Jesus retorts: “Not one - not one of you!” with no exception. Once again, no matter how he thinks he is superior to the other disciples, in the end Judas is also ‘blind’ in his own way in that he never grasps the point of it.

This is one of the ultimate ironies of Jesus Christ Superstar: while everything is seen from Judas Iscariot’ viewpoint, it does not really glorify everything that Judas says and does; instead, we gradually learn as the story unfold that Judas is himself a very flawed character no matter how he tries to ride his high horse and judge Jesus and His followers. Judas is thus more of an anti-hero. So we, the listeners/viewers, are somewhat encouraged not to side with Judas as well, since he apparently is no better than the rest. JCS is thus very much about a story about the pot calling the kettle black, or to be more Biblical, someone seeing the specks in people’s eyes while not noticing the log in his own.

 

[patrick457]

Then We Are Decided

One of the accusations against JCS is that it is anti-Semitic, in that it bolstered the claim that the Jews as a whole are responsible for Jesus’ death. Another Jesus film has suffered this controversy, as many of our readers will remember: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Perhaps to alleviate these concerns, a new, original song - more specifically, one of two - was written for the 1973 film (which to the best of my knowledge has not been adopted in other productions) which gives more context on the high priests’ wanting to put Jesus to death.

As it stands, Then We are Decided seems to be but a quite redundant paraphrase of a later number, This Jesus Must Die (which might explain its omission in other productions), albeit here, it is a sort of private conversation between Annas and Caiaphas as opposed to a meeting between Caiaphas and the other priests. Its placing in the film is also quite problematic: it destroys the continuity between Strange Thing Mystifying and Everything’s Alright. This is very much like the Pericope Adulterae of John, which was rather clumsily inserted between John 7:52 and 8:12: without the pericope, the narrative flow is quite smooth.

7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” …]

8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Many critics pick bones with the fact that unlike the opera itself, Norman Jewison’s 1973 film has not aged really well. JCS is often described as a ‘rock’ opera, but in reality, the music is highly eclectic: while there are elements of rock in it, there are also vestiges of other genres, such as classical music. In this respect JCS is similar to its predecessor, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1968), which also makes use of various musical genres ranging from Elvis Presley to Western to Disco to Reggae. The result is that the music has survived the years pretty well. By contrast, the 1973 film version is often derided for its hopelessly dated 70’s air.

Aside from his use of then ‘contemporary’ props and fashion (which, like all fads, do not survive the test of time), Robert M. Price, in his Jesus Christ Superstar: The Making of a Modern Gospel points out that part of this may also be due to the film’s minimalism. Inspired by Pier Paolo Pasolini’s film Il Vangelo secondo Matteo (1964) and its neorealistic style, he decided to film JCS in the same way: with as little grandeur as possible. This is in contrast with what Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber had vizualised: something resembling the great epics of Hollywood, with the cast of thousands and all. But this is the clincher: the title is Jesus Christ Superstar. And the idea of Jesus as being a ‘superstar’ would require the DeMille-esque epicness, the cast of thousands that Jewison so despised. The opera plays off of traditional, stereotypical depictions of Jesus so as to turn them against themselves.

But as Price points out, the one scene where this minimalmism works is here.

The sequence in “Then We Are Decided” takes place in the palace of the high priest Caiaphas. Annas makes his way through the gate, up the broad steps, and into his fellow-cleric’s presence, all by firelight, a meeting in clandestine darkness. And the long walk, as well as the worried pacing that follows, gives us a good look at Caiaphas’ residence. It is bare and roofless stone, its mighty columns reaching up helplessly into an empty void, like so many stalagmites. What worries the canny priests is a growing threat to their position: if the Jesus movement continues unchecked, it may bring the wrath of Rome down upon them, so that nation and Temple will alike be swept away. And as they deliberate the best way to forestall it, they are already standing in the midst of a field of ruins! The Temple’s doom is already sealed. “Everything is fixed, and you can’t change it.” True, it will not be Jesus who pushes the plunger, but a subsequent generation of angry messiahs in 70 A.D. (C.E.).

 

[patrick457]

The first line of the song belongs to Caiaphas: “We’ve been sitting on the fence for far too long.” The chief priests are thus presented as being in a long conflict with Jesus, only they have not done anything to Him yet because they have not made up their minds. This resembles (but is not exactly similar to) the relationship between the authorities and Jesus in the Gospel of John: there, the Passion of Jesus seems to begin almost at the beginning of the Gospel itself. Much has been made of the fact that John has Jesus ‘cleanse’ the Temple fairly early in His ministry (in contrast to the Synoptics). In effect, the clock starts to tick fairly early in John: Jesus’ eventual fate is already sealed and hinted to at the start of His ministry - nay, even before He begins it (1:10-11, 29). He only needs to wait for “the hour,” as John calls it, when all would come to pass. As in the Synoptics, the Temple incident contributes to Jesus’ eventual death: His “zeal” would do Him in.

Some have also observed the repetition of judicial terminology in Jesus’ discourses in John (key words such as ‘witness’, ‘testimony’, and ‘judge’ crop up again and again); John has cast the whole ministry of Jesus as one long trial, where Jesus repeatedly offers His testimony to those around Him.

Throughout the song, Annas and Caiaphas debate what to do with Jesus: Annas thinks He is too insignificant to be of any notice, but Caiaphas isn’t so sure. Eventually, Annas sees he could not budge his son-in-law and suggests frightening the council into action, an advice which he takes in This Jesus Must Die. Again, the song is virtually a carbon copy of that song (you could also include Scar’s song in The Lion King where he discusses his plans to get rid of Mufasa and Simba, Be Prepared - also written by Tim Rice - in the mix for enemies who cunningly devise their plans to get rid of the hero/es and one-dimensional henchmen ) that I’d defer further comments until then.

 

[patrick457]

Everything’s Alright

We now go to this song, mercilessly shorn of its continuity with Strange Thing Mystifying in the 1973 film. It goes without saying that its parallel with the Gospels are of course the anointing narratives in Matthew (26:6-13), Mark (14:3-9) and John (12:1-7). As it stands here, the song is closest to John’s account in that the one who attacks the anointer is explicitly identified as Judas, in contrast to Mark’s vague “some” and Matthew’s general “the disciples,” although the role of anointer is transferred to Mary Magdalene (though as we’ve mentioned, the earlier drafts have Mary of Bethany with Martha at this point, again in keeping with John).

As it originally and truly stands, Mary Magdalene tries to calm the agitated Jesus down, convincing Him that there’s nothing really wrong, or so she thinks. An element of irony again shows up in her lines: “Let the world turn without you tonight,” she sings. Little does she realize that sooner or later, He will be truly taken away and the world will go on its course in His absence.

In her efforts to comfort Jesus, she anoints His head and feet with myrrh (in contrast to Mark and John’s “pure nard”), in a harmonization of John’s anointing of Jesus’ feet and Matthew and Mark’s anointing of Jesus’ head. All this while the chorus of women (which the libretto labels ‘the Apostles’ women’; cf. Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 8:1-3) sing “Everything’s alright, yes” in a repetitive manner reminiscent of the male disciples in What’s the Buzz? To me, Mary Magdalene’s naïvete at what is really going on and the repetitive chorus hearkens us back to the ‘blindness of the disciples’ motif which Mark likes to bring up again and again and which JCS’ Judas fears.

In the end, Mary, for all her genuine concern about Jesus, and the women disciples are themselves also like the men: slow to comprehend and ultimately doing the wrong thing (as we would see slightly later). As I’ve mentioned before, while Mark devotes himself to the blindness of the male disciples for a good part of his Gospel, he also seems to show the women no mercy once they show up. I quote myself again

By the end of the Gospel, all of the male disciples have abandoned Jesus. Judas had sold information about Him (14:10-11), Peter denied even knowing Him (14:66-72), while the rest - including a mysterious young man - ran away (14:50-51). This leaves only the women who followed Jesus - the first time they crop up in the narrative! - brave enough to watch Jesus suffering at His final moments, to see where His corpse is buried, and to visit His tomb (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2).

Even then, what they do seems to be a dubious honor, as they watch Jesus die “from a distance,” and the Gospel proper ends with them apparently not (yet) delivering the young man in white’s message that Jesus has been raised up to the male disciples (16:6-7). “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (16:8) In this dark note, the only glimmer of hope is the young man’s/angel’s words: “There [in Galilee] you will see him, just as he told you.” But as we mentioned, Mark apparently finishes (or breaks off) before we even get to see it.

 

[patrick457]

Explore Cybersecurity Memberships in the UK for Career Growth and Support

Discover the advantages of cybersecurity memberships in the UK, offering expert resources, networking, and professional growth to advance your career.

www.cyberbrethren.com

Of course, our Judas does not let a chance pass by and excoriates Mary for anointing Jesus with such an expensive perfume, and Jesus for allowing Mary to do this.

Woman your fine ointment, brand new and expensive
Should have been saved for the poor.
Why has it been wasted? We could have raised maybe
Three hundred silver pieces or more:
People who are hungry, people who are starving
They matter more than your feet and hair!

Whereas in the original accounts, the heart of the complaint seems to be Judas’ (or the disciples’ or some people’s, depending on which Gospel you read) concern on the ointment’s monetary value, here emphasis is more on Judas’ criticism of what he perceives to be ‘incosistency’ on the part of Jesus and ‘blindness’ on the disciples’, which again brings us back to the preceding numbers. “People who are hungry, people who are starving - they matter more than your feet and hair!” Here is a Man who preached that rich people should sell everything they have and give it to the poor: now, here He is, enjoying a luxury!

In response to Judas’ vehement attack, Mary repeats her chorus. Now there has been some variance between productions as to whom the lines are actually directed to: the 1973 film makes Mary’s words directed at Judas - perhaps because it immediately follows his lines - as a retort to make him calm down as well, so the film cuts out the last three lines in this instance: “And we want you to sleep well tonight…” But in all likelihood, it is more likely that this line, like its first occurrence, is addressed to Jesus. (We could note here that the 2000 version makes a compromise by making the first half refer to Judas, with the second to Jesus.)

I would follow here the interpretation that the occurrence of this verse is directed to Jesus. Mary sings her lines immediately after Judas as if to point out that this is the kind of thing that she wants Jesus to forget. The comfort of Jesus the Superstar is first and foremost to His fans: they want to protect Him from anything uncomfortable, even if that be the unpleasant truth. This is why I’ve said that “the women disciples are themselves also like the men: slow to comprehend and ultimately doing the wrong thing.” Mary and the women’s is the sort of blind adulation that Judas laments about: they ultimately prove to be over-protective of Jesus, trying to prevent Him from reaching His hour of glorification.

Jesus answers Judas’ argument as in the Gospels:

Surely you’re not saying we have the resources
To save the poor from their lot?
There will be poor always, pathetically struggling
Look at the good things you’ve got!
Think - while you still have me!
Move - while you still see me!
You’ll be lost, and you’ll be sorry when I’m gone!

There is a small glimmer of hope: even if Mary seems to do the wrong thing by being somewhat over-protective, her actions unwittingly recognize what must happen in the following days. Selling the ointment by itself will not magically solve the problem of poverty, and the poor will always be there as long as we wander this valley of tears; why not then let her use it in an occasion in which it can have a meaning? “You always have the poor with you, but you do not have me always.” Mary at least does something while Jesus is still here: but there will come a time when He will no longer be sitting there with them. Once He is gone, they will realize what they’ve missed, and it will be too late. “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.” (Mark 2:19-20)

Jesus closes His reply with another foretelling of His death, in tone resembling His final public discourse in John (12:35-36):

So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

And His words to the disciples (John 16:16-22):

“A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me.” So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?” So they were saying, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.”

Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, ‘A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me’? Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.”

While Jesus’ answer to Judas may seem a bit petulant (and thus some critics have viewed it), His words here are actually very Johannine, in that they are pregnant with double meanings.

 

[tonild]

CS Lewis wrote the narnia story to help children get closer to Jesus. The Lion Is Jesus. Aslan tells the children before they leave Narnia the last time, that he has a different name in our world, and they must learn of him in their/ our own world. The Movies went away from this a bit. But the newer one was closer to the books.

 

[The_Professor]

tonild, I think you have the wrong board.

Patrick, these are excellent reflections. I just read your first and am going to read them all!

 

[patrick457]

This Jesus Must Die

Good Caiaphas, the council waits for you:
The Pharisees and priests are here for you.

Just a side note here. Many people assume that those who handed Jesus over to death were Pharisees, because of Jesus’ frequent clashes with them and the side remarks that they so wanted to put Him to death, or at least they equate the Temple priesthood with the Pharisees. This however is a misconception that is apparently not supported by the Gospels themselves. I shall shamelessly quote myself again here:

Did the Pharisees hand Jesus to death?

http://theprognosis.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/pharisees.gif

It is a common mistake among some Christians to conflate the Pharisees with the Temple priesthood, especially in the Passion narratives. Sometimes, popular art may contribute to this misconception: there are a number of films, for example, which do not show a very clear-cut difference between the Pharisees and the priests. They are portrayed all hanging out with each other and they even all uniformly dress alike! So, you can often see someone dropping statements like “the Pharisees handed Jesus to death” or something along those lines. This, however, is a misconception that is not supported by history and the Bible itself.

The Gospels mostly only record Jesus’ discussions and clashes with the Pharisees and the scribes (most likely THEIR scribes; the scribes weren’t a separate group by themselves) for the duration of His ministry, though there is the occasional mention of various groups: ‘Judaeans’, ‘Herodians,’ and ‘Sadducees’. But all this changes once Jesus arrives in Jerusalem for the final time:

• Matthew records four further scuffles between the Pharisees and Jesus after He enters the city: on the question about whether to pay taxes to Caesar (22:15-22), about the greatest commandment (22:34-40), and whose son the Christ is (22:41-45), which culminates in Jesus delivering His woes against the “scribes and Pharisees” (23:1-37). After this tirade, the Pharisees disappear, only to reappear for one final time in a bit role - where they are paired with “the chief priests” (27:62).
• Mark records the dispute on taxes (Mark 12:13-17) as well as the the greatest commandment (12:28-34). On the latter, Mark only names the questioner rather ambiguously as “one of the scribes;” after Jesus gives His answer, Mark then says: “And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.” With this mention, the Pharisees are finally gone from the narrative.
• Luke mentions the Pharisees requesting that Jesus rebuke His disciples (19:39-40): the final time in the Gospel that the term ‘Pharisee’ appears. He then also mentions the dispute on taxes (20:19-26), but describes the questioners as “spies, who pretended to be sincere.” He does not record the question on the greatest commandment (having recorded a similar instance earlier), but here the scribes express their assent to Jesus after His answer to the Sadducees (20:39-40). Like Mark, he notes that they did so “for they no longer dared to ask him any question.” A bit later, Luke then writes of Jesus criticizing the scribes (20:45-47).
• There are only three mentions in John mid- and post-Triumphal Entry which concern the Pharisees: where they remark that “You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him” (12:19). The second goes (12:42-43):

Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

The final mention of them is in 18:3, where, in a minor role, the arrest party is said to be sent by “the chief priests and the Pharisees.” (interestingly, they never appear in the Passion itself)

Beyond these instances, “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” assume the role of Jesus’ opponents. They challenge His authority, pay Judas, get Him arrested after plotting about it, interrogate Him and send Him to Pilate, and mock Him at the cross. Luke here adds reference to the “rulers” (23:13, 35; 24:20) and “first men” (19:47) reminiscent of Josephus’ description of the Sadducees (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14).

So, despite the repeated mention of the Gospels that the Pharisees had plotted to kill Jesus (for some reason; the Gospels never give an explicit, concrete reason as to why), someone had beaten them to it!

 

[patrick457]

The priests who served in the Temple did not constitute a party as such. They were rather, a class, and a large and important one at that. The priests were assisted in their duty by a lower order of clergy: the Levites, who served in the Temple in various ways: some sang during public services; some guarded the gates and served as the security force; some cleaned the area; some brought forward the sacrificial animals and the wood for the altar. According to Josephus, there appear to have been about 20,000 priests and Levites together (Apion 2.108).

…]

Most priests and Levites had no party affiliation. We know that some aristocratic priests who occupied the higher positions were (or had connections with) Sadducees and some ordinary priests were Pharisees, but the priests and Levites for the most part seem to have practiced common Judaism, as the majority of Jews did. They shared the beliefs and practices of their compatriots, and in addition they followed parts of the Law that applied only to priests.

Historically, the Pharisees - which seems to have had its origins fairly early in the Hasmonean period (before 135 BC) - were predominantly lay sages and teachers. Some were priests, but a vast majority were scholarly laymen. At the time of Herod, there were about 6,000 of them (Antiquities 17.42). They preached a grassroots, democratic and participatory form of Judaism that is, in many respects, liberal. Their views were were non-creedal and non-dogmatic, and heterogenous. They believed that because Israel is a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (thus, every Jew is in some way, a priest), they believed in a Judaism that extended beyond the Temple, applying Jewish law to mundane activities in order to sanctify the every-day world. They emphasized that rituals were not something that is monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively; whose leaders were not determined by birth but by scholarly achievement. All Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should thus observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

…]

There was a time when the Pharisees held actual political authority (during the Hasmonean Dynasty). But under Herod, no one else had political power, and anyone who sought it was promptly executed. His son Antipas, who ruled the Galilee, was no more inclined than his father to give authority to a group of pious teachers. And in Jerusalem, the high priests backed by Rome were in charge after Archelaus was deposed. So they had no other choice but to lie low. They worked, studied, taught and worshiped according to their own way. Probably they increased in popularity, but they had no actual power in the political sense.

We now go to the Sadducees, which was basically a group - or rather, more like a loose confederation - of wealthy and powerful men of Iudaea Province, which included members of the priestly aristocracy. It seems that they arose in the Hasmonean period as opponents of the Pharisaic party. Depending on who was in power, they got either the good or the bad end of the stick.

We don’t know much about them, except that most of them were aristocratic, did not believe in any form of life after death, and did not accept the special traditions of the Pharisees. Some scholars theorize that they preserved a more archaized form of Judaism than the Pharisaic doctrine, which developed gradually within the climate of the exilic and post-exilic period and evolved and became elastic as times and needs changed. Because of this conservative reflex to ‘preserve the old ways’ and the fact that they virtually are the ruling majority over the Temple, it is thought they were naturally wary of the ‘new-fangled’, democratic Pharisaic ideas which placed huge emphasis on the Jewish laity (“a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) and did not center itself on Temple ritual.

Most scholars suppose that a lot of the high priests of the period were Sadducees, but we have direct information only about one who was: Ananus, who was high priest in AD 62, famous for (illegally) putting James ‘brother of the Lord’ to death, and who was one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt (Antiquities 20.199). The reader of the New Testament finds that they are explicitly named only a few times: it confirms their close association with the aristocratic priesthood and the fact that they did not believe in the resurrection.

The Jewish historian Josephus - himself not too fond of them, being aligned with the Pharisees, or so he claims - described them as the “first men,” arguing amongst themselves, having the confidence of the wealthy alone (Antiquities 13.10.6; 18.1.4; Jewish War 2.8.14). The Pharisees’ popularity would have been threatening for them, because anyone who challenged their religious authority or who brought on social change threatened a power pyramid from which they benefited.

Nevertheless, the Pharisees do figure more prominently in John’s Gospel as a whole as Jesus’ enemies more so than the Synoptics, and given that this is a scene from John, I think we can’t really blame Rice.