R
R_C
Guest
Patrick, some great posts! 
- Status
S
steve53
Guest
Like I said, I donāt watch Jesus films.
But from all indications, Caiaphas was a very handsome man. In a practical sense, he was the āstarā of the second temple. Ananus, the real power, thought so much of him that he was brought into the family. With his charismatic qualities, more people would come to temple, and tithe more.
Remember that the High Priest served as the link between God and man. And the High Priest had to be perfectly formed, too.
So casting Caiaphas as an ugly wretch is anti-semitic from the get-go.
Any Jesus films out there where Caiaphas is good-looking?
But from all indications, Caiaphas was a very handsome man. In a practical sense, he was the āstarā of the second temple. Ananus, the real power, thought so much of him that he was brought into the family. With his charismatic qualities, more people would come to temple, and tithe more.
Remember that the High Priest served as the link between God and man. And the High Priest had to be perfectly formed, too.
So casting Caiaphas as an ugly wretch is anti-semitic from the get-go.
Any Jesus films out there where Caiaphas is good-looking?
P
patrick457
Guest
āHandsomeā is a really subjective word. Most Jesus films I know of show a middle-aged to elderly Caiaphas - I think itās due to the influence of the usual portrayal of Jewish leaders as old men in traditional Christian art. Many of these Caiaphases sport beards. And yes, some of them are ugly.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2812/v0ga.jpg
(The same picture, in better quality)
I took the trouble of making a pic showing Caiaphas from various films and series. I didnāt include every portrayal that I know of. (Aside from The Miracle Maker I omitted animated features as well as reenactments in documentaries.) I cheated slightly by including Jesus Christ Superstar (Bob Bingham from the 1973 version - fourth pic from the left on the third row - and Frederick B Owens from the 2000 version - third pic on sixth row) and a modernized version of medieval English passion/mystery plays known as The Mysteries (Brian Glover dressed as a bishop - fifth pic on third row).
There are also a couple of āminorā foreign Jesus movies in there: an Indian movie known as Karunamayudu (Telugu; third pic on fourth row), aka Daya Sagar in Hindi, and the Filipino movie Kristo (fourth on fifth row). Finally, I also included that Muslim Jesus film made in Iran (Mesih, 2007) - its Caiaphas is the fourth on the sixth row.
P
patrick457
Guest
Oh yes, I also included Jesus of Montreal in the former pic (second pic on fifth row) even though that wasnāt a film about Jesus per se but about actors producing a (very unconventional) passion play. The first pic on the same row is from The Last Temptation of Christ. Iāll go into more depth later when we get to that but I will say for now that Caiaphas appears in only a single scene from that film (compared to the original novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, where he has a larger role), and he isnāt too much of a corrupt, ugly wretch as he was in the book.
DeMille never understood why Jewish groups protested against his portrayal of the Jewish leaders in The King of Kings. In fact, in his 1959 memoir he had pointed out how his film featured āthe greatest Jew who ever livedā and that he had gone to āgreat lengths to show that the Jewish people of Jesusā time followed and heard Him gladly, that His death came at the hands of a few unrepresentative, corrupt religious leaders and the cowardly and callous Roman government.ā
But simply pointing out that Jesus and His ilk were Jews only answers half of the question. What is usually thought of as problematic - both in DeMille and in Gibson - is the somewhat oversimplified worldview prevalent in their films. I donāt think itās so much about a question of ethnicity but a question of allegiance: in order to qualify as a āgood Jewā (or since weāre talking about movies, in order to be on the heroesā side) apparently you have to be in some way be a sort of proto-Christian; in other words, you have to be sympathetic to Jesus.
The jarring contrast between Pilate and Caiaphas is another point of similarity between the two films. Caiaphas in TPotC may not look too much like an anti-Semitic caricature compared to Caiaphas in TKoK, but heās also physically unattractive and is definitely not the sort of guy youād like to hang around with. Compared to the shady, bearded, aggressive Caiaphas is the noble, clean-shaven, passive Pilate. While as you mention Melās Roman soldiers are quite brutal, their brutality is kind of obscured by the fact that the weak-willed Pilate was really just ābulliedā by the chief priests into having that done for them.
That I think is one of the source of the complaints: both filmmakers had made Caiaphas, the chief priests, and the temple guards too āexoticā, ominous and decadent-looking (cf. their costumes - long dark robes plus tacky-looking armor), too unattractive and unlikeable that they come across like stock cardboard villains. While both cut Pilate some slack, they both seem to have no hesitation in imputing negative traits to Caiaphas. (Pilate and the Roman soldiers definitely look a bit more ācleanerā than Caiaphas or any other of the chief priests or the temple guards. Maybe itās the beardsā fault?
)
I quoted your post again. I just wanted to return a bit to TPotC while weāre talking about DeMille since the twoās films have some elements in common.
DeMille never understood why Jewish groups protested against his portrayal of the Jewish leaders in The King of Kings. In fact, in his 1959 memoir he had pointed out how his film featured āthe greatest Jew who ever livedā and that he had gone to āgreat lengths to show that the Jewish people of Jesusā time followed and heard Him gladly, that His death came at the hands of a few unrepresentative, corrupt religious leaders and the cowardly and callous Roman government.ā
But simply pointing out that Jesus and His ilk were Jews only answers half of the question. What is usually thought of as problematic - both in DeMille and in Gibson - is the somewhat oversimplified worldview prevalent in their films. I donāt think itās so much about a question of ethnicity but a question of allegiance: in order to qualify as a āgood Jewā (or since weāre talking about movies, in order to be on the heroesā side) apparently you have to be in some way be a sort of proto-Christian; in other words, you have to be sympathetic to Jesus.
The jarring contrast between Pilate and Caiaphas is another point of similarity between the two films. Caiaphas in TPotC may not look too much like an anti-Semitic caricature compared to Caiaphas in TKoK, but heās also physically unattractive and is definitely not the sort of guy youād like to hang around with. Compared to the shady, bearded, aggressive Caiaphas is the noble, clean-shaven, passive Pilate. While as you mention Melās Roman soldiers are quite brutal, their brutality is kind of obscured by the fact that the weak-willed Pilate was really just ābulliedā by the chief priests into having that done for them.
That I think is one of the source of the complaints: both filmmakers had made Caiaphas, the chief priests, and the temple guards too āexoticā, ominous and decadent-looking (cf. their costumes - long dark robes plus tacky-looking armor), too unattractive and unlikeable that they come across like stock cardboard villains. While both cut Pilate some slack, they both seem to have no hesitation in imputing negative traits to Caiaphas. (Pilate and the Roman soldiers definitely look a bit more ācleanerā than Caiaphas or any other of the chief priests or the temple guards. Maybe itās the beardsā fault?
)
S
steve53
Guest
Studies consistently show that better-looking people somehow make their way up the ladder of success with greater ease.
Of the three, (Jesus, Caiaphas, Pilate) Jesus was probably the ugliest by far.
Ananus assumed the HP position relatively young, when the Romans took over Judea and the Temple in A.D. 6. Ananus was a shrewd Roman puppet yes-man.
He left after 10 years, but remained a power, and died very old in A,D, 68.
We can assume he was in his late twenties in A.D. 6.
Making other assumptions, Caiaphas could have been in his late twenties as well when he became HP in A.D. 26 or so. And good-looking enough to attract Ananusā daughter. Caiaphas was in his mid-late thirties when he arrange to have Jesus arrested.
Ananus, BTW, Josephus had great respect for. Ananus treated every Jew, rich or poor, the same, according to Josephus, who probably knew the man well.
Of the three, (Jesus, Caiaphas, Pilate) Jesus was probably the ugliest by far.
Ananus assumed the HP position relatively young, when the Romans took over Judea and the Temple in A.D. 6. Ananus was a shrewd Roman puppet yes-man.
He left after 10 years, but remained a power, and died very old in A,D, 68.
We can assume he was in his late twenties in A.D. 6.
Making other assumptions, Caiaphas could have been in his late twenties as well when he became HP in A.D. 26 or so. And good-looking enough to attract Ananusā daughter. Caiaphas was in his mid-late thirties when he arrange to have Jesus arrested.
Ananus, BTW, Josephus had great respect for. Ananus treated every Jew, rich or poor, the same, according to Josephus, who probably knew the man well.
P
patrick457
Guest
This is where we come to the greatest fault of two films (which is really a fault shared by a number of other Jesus movies): they never give a clear reason as to exactly why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead. In both of these films, the viewer is simply shown the chief priests trying to have Jesus killed, but no explanation of some kind is given as to why they hate Him so much. They plot to put Him to death mainly simply because thatās what the gospels say. This, combined with the fact that the Jewish leaders are physically represented on-screen as shady, unlikeable characters effectively demonizes them, reducing them to two-dimensional villains who act against the protagonist seemingly for no reason other than the fact that theyāre just evil.
DeMille did at least attempt to provide a background for Caiaphas by introducing him (in the original version) as a corrupt man āwho cared more for Revenue than for Religion - and saw in Jesus a menace to his rich profits from the Temple,ā but that really doesnāt help. If anything, Caiaphasā (and by extension, his henchmenās) villain status were just cemented even further. The revised version of the intertitle where Caiaphas is simply a Roman appointee was actually a step backward IMHO: in an attempt to quell the furor, DeMille removed any reference to Caiaphas as a money-grubbing jerk, but many of his on-screen actions remain, now left unexplained. Just as I said earlier, while it is repeatedly claimed that the Jews were under Roman control, it does not explain why the Jewish authorities are venal and cruel.
In Melās case, limiting yourself to the last twenty-four hour period of Jesusā life leaves you with little time to explore this whole background. In fact, the thing about TPotC is that its main target seems to be people who already know the basic story and thus can fill in the blanks (i.e. Christians, especially Catholics - given how Mel made liberal use of the visions of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich as a source). I think people unfamiliar with the story of Jesus will be left confused as to why the temple authorities were so bent on seeing Him die, since it simply happens on-screen with little to no context (no, Iām not counting the flashback to Jesus saying that He lays His life down of His own free will as an explanation - that could indeed be seen as saying that no one is responsible for Jesusā death, but still leaves the matter which weāre discussing unanswered).
In a sense, the gospels themselves are to blame for this two-dimensional representation of Jesusā opponents. I often like to point out how the text of the gospels - especially the synoptics - simply by themselves would make a bad screenplay, since they simply tell you what supposedly happened in an episodic, bald summary-type of way, but never the hows or whys. So you donāt get much character depth, and no explanation as to why people acted like this or that or what they could they have been thinking in a given situation - what happened is simply narrated. (Johnās gospel is a notable exception to this.) The scholar E.P. Sanders once wrote:
The synoptic gospels lack most of the things that we now expect in the story of someoneās life. Looks, personality, character - we know very little. When it comes to the other figures besides Jesus, we are really in the dark. Pilate, curiously, is given touches of character by Matthew and John, but for the most part the other actors are very flat. Peter, we learn, was a little wishy-washy. What was John like? James? We do not know. What about the Pharisees? They appear in a group, denounce Jesus, sometimes are denounced in turn, and disappear. What were they up to? Were they all equally hostile towards Jesus? Where did they go when they disappeared? If they thought that Jesusā disciples were breaking the sabbath law (Mark 2.24), why did they not lay a charge by reporting them to a priest (who might have fined them by requiring that each bring a sin offering, two birds, when next in Jerusalem)?
Many readers today do not realize how episodic the synoptic gospels are, since Christians have had almost 2000 years to build up a more novelistic view of the events and people in the gospels. Books have been written, movies made, explanations offered. On Sundays numerous priests, pastors and teachers retell some aspect of the gospel account, adding personality and motive. Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, is often depicted as a frustrated zealot who wanted Jesus to lead a revolution, who thought of himself as a great man in Jesusā kingdom, and who was bitterly angry when he learned that Jesus wanted another sort of kingdom. This gives the story colour and drama. There is nothing in the gospels about Judasā ambitions at all. Perhaps he realized that Jesus was a marked man and decided to get out when he still could, while also making a profit. One guess is as good as another. Similarly Mary Magdalene has appealed enormously to people who have imagined all sorts of romantic things about her: she had been a prostitute, she was beautiful, she was in love with Jesus, she fled to France carrying his child. For all we know, on the basis of our sources, she was eighty-six, childless, and keen to mother unkempt young men.
DeMille did at least attempt to provide a background for Caiaphas by introducing him (in the original version) as a corrupt man āwho cared more for Revenue than for Religion - and saw in Jesus a menace to his rich profits from the Temple,ā but that really doesnāt help. If anything, Caiaphasā (and by extension, his henchmenās) villain status were just cemented even further. The revised version of the intertitle where Caiaphas is simply a Roman appointee was actually a step backward IMHO: in an attempt to quell the furor, DeMille removed any reference to Caiaphas as a money-grubbing jerk, but many of his on-screen actions remain, now left unexplained. Just as I said earlier, while it is repeatedly claimed that the Jews were under Roman control, it does not explain why the Jewish authorities are venal and cruel.
In Melās case, limiting yourself to the last twenty-four hour period of Jesusā life leaves you with little time to explore this whole background. In fact, the thing about TPotC is that its main target seems to be people who already know the basic story and thus can fill in the blanks (i.e. Christians, especially Catholics - given how Mel made liberal use of the visions of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich as a source). I think people unfamiliar with the story of Jesus will be left confused as to why the temple authorities were so bent on seeing Him die, since it simply happens on-screen with little to no context (no, Iām not counting the flashback to Jesus saying that He lays His life down of His own free will as an explanation - that could indeed be seen as saying that no one is responsible for Jesusā death, but still leaves the matter which weāre discussing unanswered).
In a sense, the gospels themselves are to blame for this two-dimensional representation of Jesusā opponents. I often like to point out how the text of the gospels - especially the synoptics - simply by themselves would make a bad screenplay, since they simply tell you what supposedly happened in an episodic, bald summary-type of way, but never the hows or whys. So you donāt get much character depth, and no explanation as to why people acted like this or that or what they could they have been thinking in a given situation - what happened is simply narrated. (Johnās gospel is a notable exception to this.) The scholar E.P. Sanders once wrote:
The synoptic gospels lack most of the things that we now expect in the story of someoneās life. Looks, personality, character - we know very little. When it comes to the other figures besides Jesus, we are really in the dark. Pilate, curiously, is given touches of character by Matthew and John, but for the most part the other actors are very flat. Peter, we learn, was a little wishy-washy. What was John like? James? We do not know. What about the Pharisees? They appear in a group, denounce Jesus, sometimes are denounced in turn, and disappear. What were they up to? Were they all equally hostile towards Jesus? Where did they go when they disappeared? If they thought that Jesusā disciples were breaking the sabbath law (Mark 2.24), why did they not lay a charge by reporting them to a priest (who might have fined them by requiring that each bring a sin offering, two birds, when next in Jerusalem)?
Many readers today do not realize how episodic the synoptic gospels are, since Christians have had almost 2000 years to build up a more novelistic view of the events and people in the gospels. Books have been written, movies made, explanations offered. On Sundays numerous priests, pastors and teachers retell some aspect of the gospel account, adding personality and motive. Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, is often depicted as a frustrated zealot who wanted Jesus to lead a revolution, who thought of himself as a great man in Jesusā kingdom, and who was bitterly angry when he learned that Jesus wanted another sort of kingdom. This gives the story colour and drama. There is nothing in the gospels about Judasā ambitions at all. Perhaps he realized that Jesus was a marked man and decided to get out when he still could, while also making a profit. One guess is as good as another. Similarly Mary Magdalene has appealed enormously to people who have imagined all sorts of romantic things about her: she had been a prostitute, she was beautiful, she was in love with Jesus, she fled to France carrying his child. For all we know, on the basis of our sources, she was eighty-six, childless, and keen to mother unkempt young men.
P
patrick457
Guest
And the irony is, Jesus is almost always the handsome one. Well, Heās the Son of God, so I guess we canāt show Him looking like any olā dirty peasant, can we? (Iām not going here to the early Christian debate as to whether Jesus was physically handsome or ugly.)
P
patrick457
Guest
DeMilleās The King of Kings in a sense marked the end of the first phase of the Hollywood Jesus film. For the next thirty or so years, there would be no major film about the life of Jesus made in Hollywood (no, sword-and-sandal stuff like Quo Vadis or Barabbas or Ben-Hur donāt count) due to the promulgation of the Motion Picture Production Code (aka the Hays Code) in the 1930s, which stipulated amongst other things that:
VIII. Religion
The situation is of course different in other countries. One of the very first Jesus ātalkiesā is a 1935 French film directed by Julien Duvivier known as Golgotha (released as Ecce Homo in the US), which focuses on Jesusā last week starting from Palm Sunday up to His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.
Some elements of the film has also come under some flak - such as the cliche of brooding, conspiratorial, villainous Jewish leaders and the hesitant Pilate (although in fairness, this filmās Pilate is probably more of a stronger figure than in other movies). In fact, it adopts the all-too common formula of showing the Jewish leaders and Judas as physically unattractive, smug characters with stereotypical āJewishā features such as broad foreheads, bushy beards and large noses - again in contrast to the more tidier Pilate or the gaunt, European Jesus. (Incidentally, the actor who played Jesus, Robert Le Vigan, was actually an anti-Semite and later became a Nazi collaborator during WWII.)
The film also presents a Christiano-centric, supersessionist air: when the temple veil is torn, one of the priests comments: āGod has abandoned the temple.ā At Golgotha meanwhile, one of Caiaphasā companions wonders whether āif it is the Messiah [they] had just crucified.ā Not that this realization drives them into some sort of repentance: Duvivier includes the story of the chief priests bribing the soldiers into saying that the disciples have stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15).
http://www.lacinemathequedetoulouse.com/system/photos/3433/original/golgotha-3.jpg?1296479662
Pilate and Caiaphas
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/374/cgc9.jpg
Judas
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/171/akrq.jpg
Jesus
There is also less sympathy here with the Good Friday crowd (which is about as large as, if not larger than, the crowd in Melās film - the number of people who watch the crucifixion is unbelievably large, in fact one of the largest in Jesus film history): we get quite a number of shots from people who shout for Jesus to be crucified, but Jesusā (female) disciples are all standing away silently in a far corner, their stoic silence contrasting with the heaving crowd. In fact, the faceless crowd is two-dimensionally fickle: they are the cinematic equivalent of the rhetoric presented in some sermons - where āHosannasā turn a few days later into āCrucify Him.ā
That being said, it does in some places seem to attempt to provide a bit of balance than other earlier depictions. While most of the (Jewish) onlookers visibly enjoy Jesus being scourged, it causes one woman to faint, while another looks on in sympathetic anguish. Some of the Roman soldiers give the so-called āRoman saluteā to Jesus - which had served as the inspiration for the Hitler salute and the Fascist salute.
VIII. Religion
- No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.
- Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.
- Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.
The situation is of course different in other countries. One of the very first Jesus ātalkiesā is a 1935 French film directed by Julien Duvivier known as Golgotha (released as Ecce Homo in the US), which focuses on Jesusā last week starting from Palm Sunday up to His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.
Some elements of the film has also come under some flak - such as the cliche of brooding, conspiratorial, villainous Jewish leaders and the hesitant Pilate (although in fairness, this filmās Pilate is probably more of a stronger figure than in other movies). In fact, it adopts the all-too common formula of showing the Jewish leaders and Judas as physically unattractive, smug characters with stereotypical āJewishā features such as broad foreheads, bushy beards and large noses - again in contrast to the more tidier Pilate or the gaunt, European Jesus. (Incidentally, the actor who played Jesus, Robert Le Vigan, was actually an anti-Semite and later became a Nazi collaborator during WWII.)
The film also presents a Christiano-centric, supersessionist air: when the temple veil is torn, one of the priests comments: āGod has abandoned the temple.ā At Golgotha meanwhile, one of Caiaphasā companions wonders whether āif it is the Messiah [they] had just crucified.ā Not that this realization drives them into some sort of repentance: Duvivier includes the story of the chief priests bribing the soldiers into saying that the disciples have stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15).
http://www.lacinemathequedetoulouse.com/system/photos/3433/original/golgotha-3.jpg?1296479662
Pilate and Caiaphas
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/374/cgc9.jpg
Judas
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/171/akrq.jpg
Jesus
There is also less sympathy here with the Good Friday crowd (which is about as large as, if not larger than, the crowd in Melās film - the number of people who watch the crucifixion is unbelievably large, in fact one of the largest in Jesus film history): we get quite a number of shots from people who shout for Jesus to be crucified, but Jesusā (female) disciples are all standing away silently in a far corner, their stoic silence contrasting with the heaving crowd. In fact, the faceless crowd is two-dimensionally fickle: they are the cinematic equivalent of the rhetoric presented in some sermons - where āHosannasā turn a few days later into āCrucify Him.ā
That being said, it does in some places seem to attempt to provide a bit of balance than other earlier depictions. While most of the (Jewish) onlookers visibly enjoy Jesus being scourged, it causes one woman to faint, while another looks on in sympathetic anguish. Some of the Roman soldiers give the so-called āRoman saluteā to Jesus - which had served as the inspiration for the Hitler salute and the Fascist salute.
P
patrick457
Guest
Iām just reminded of my last comment with the passage in the Gospel of Peter.
Now it was noontime, and darkness held all Judaea fast, and they were troubled and agonized lest the sun had set while he was still alive. (It is written for them: āthe sun must not set on one who has been murdered.ā) And one of them said, āGive him gall with wine-vinegar to drink.ā And having mixed it, they gave it to drink: and they fulfilled all things and completed their sins on their own head. Now many, having went about with lamps (assuming that it was night), fell down. And the Lord shouted, saying, āMy Power, O Power, you have abandoned me!ā And having said this, he was taken up. And in that hour the veil of the sanctuary of Jerusalem was torn in two.
And then they drew the nails out of the hands of the Lord and placed him upon the earth; and the whole earth was shaken, and there came a great fear. Then the sun shone and it was found to be the ninth hour. But the Judaeans rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he had seen what good things he did. Now having taken the Lord, he washed and bound him with a linen shroud and brought him into his own burial-place called āJosephās Gardenā.
Then the Judaeans and the elders and the priests, knowing what evil they had done to themselves, began to beat in mourning and say, āWoe to our sins! The judgment and the end of Jerusalem are at hand!ā But I with my companions were grieving, and being wounded in mind we hid, because we were being sought by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the sanctuary. And above all these we were fasting and we sat lamenting and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.
Now the scribes and Pharisees and elders gathered together with one another, having heard that all the people were grumbling and beating their breasts, saying, āIf by his death these great signs have happened, see how righteous he was.ā The elders were frightened and came to Pilate, begging him and saying, āHand us over a soldier that we might guard his tomb for three days, lest his disciples, having come, steal him, and the people suppose that he rose from the dead, and do us evil.ā ā¦]
ā¦] Having seen these, those around the centurion hastened to Pilate at night, having left the burial-place which they were guarding, and reported all that they had seen, greatly agonized and saying, āTruly, he was Godās son!ā Pilate answered and said, āI am clean of the blood of the son of God; but you have decided this.ā They all, having come forward, begged and urged him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of what they had seen. āFor it is better,ā they said, āfor us to incur the greatest sin before God than to fall into the hands of the Judaean people and be stoned.ā Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
P
patrick457
Guest
We pick up again after World War II and its horrors. As Iāve mentioned, major film studios in Hollywood were hesitant to even show Jesusā face on the silver screen for more than thirty years due to the Hays Code. There were a few exceptions however: one was a twelve-episode television series made in 1951 produced by the Christian filmmaking company Cathedral Films (often mistakenly identified as a Catholic company on the web when it was not, BTW) known as The Living Christ. Despite its stiff, ultra-solemn Jesus it was actually revolutionary for its time - because it had dared to portray Jesus directly in a time when many filmmakers in America did not have enough guts to do so. Material from this series were remade into a couple of spin-off films: I Beheld His Glory and Day of Triumph. (There was another television series produced by another company, Family Films: The Living Bible, which was also brave enough to attempt the same.)
As far as they go, both series are ultra-faithful to the gospel narratives (in a harmonized form) to the point of being bland and unoriginal. Nevertheless, the way The Living Christ handles the material weāre discussing is worth noting. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is explained in the olā standard way: Jesus is this nice guy whoās been healing the sick and the possessed; āthe Phariseesā are distressed because they are losing their followers to Jesus.
As for Good Friday, Iām quoting Matt Pageās (of Bible Films Blog) review of a couple of episodes:
Finally, episode 3 introduces us to Pontius Pilate as he is installed as governor. One piece of dialogue was where he specifically states āIām no soul searching philosopherā. Again many of the charges of anti-Semitism against The Passion of the Christ have been routed in the way that film portrays Pilate precisely as a āsoul searching philosopherā (numerous authors use those very words.
ā¦]
This film excludes the controversial line from Matt 27:25 āhis blood be on us and our childrenā, and includes Caiaphasā prophetic statement from John 11:50 ābetter that one man die for all the people than the nation should perishā. These particular lines have been very significant in the debate about anti-Semitism. The verse from Matthew has long been associated with anti-Semitism, whereas the latter verse from John has been key in unpicking what some of the motives were that caused the Jewish Leaders to hand Jesus over to the hated Romans. Interestingly enough, this film was made before the Second Vatican council which passed various statements on anti-Semitism, and these particular lines in general.
Hereās a relevant clip from the film, starting from the trial before Herod up to Pilateās hand-washing. Also, a discussion between Pharisees about how much of a threat Jesus is.
As far as they go, both series are ultra-faithful to the gospel narratives (in a harmonized form) to the point of being bland and unoriginal. Nevertheless, the way The Living Christ handles the material weāre discussing is worth noting. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is explained in the olā standard way: Jesus is this nice guy whoās been healing the sick and the possessed; āthe Phariseesā are distressed because they are losing their followers to Jesus.
As for Good Friday, Iām quoting Matt Pageās (of Bible Films Blog) review of a couple of episodes:
Finally, episode 3 introduces us to Pontius Pilate as he is installed as governor. One piece of dialogue was where he specifically states āIām no soul searching philosopherā. Again many of the charges of anti-Semitism against The Passion of the Christ have been routed in the way that film portrays Pilate precisely as a āsoul searching philosopherā (numerous authors use those very words.
ā¦]
This film excludes the controversial line from Matt 27:25 āhis blood be on us and our childrenā, and includes Caiaphasā prophetic statement from John 11:50 ābetter that one man die for all the people than the nation should perishā. These particular lines have been very significant in the debate about anti-Semitism. The verse from Matthew has long been associated with anti-Semitism, whereas the latter verse from John has been key in unpicking what some of the motives were that caused the Jewish Leaders to hand Jesus over to the hated Romans. Interestingly enough, this film was made before the Second Vatican council which passed various statements on anti-Semitism, and these particular lines in general.
Hereās a relevant clip from the film, starting from the trial before Herod up to Pilateās hand-washing. Also, a discussion between Pharisees about how much of a threat Jesus is.
P
patrick457
Guest
The thirty-four year unofficial ban on Hollywood Jesus films was broken by the 1961 film King of Kings, which while sharing the same title as DeMilleās film (minus the āTheā), is of totally different constitution altogether. Jesus is played by the then thirty-three year old Jeffrey Hunter, who despite being the same age as Jesus was traditionally held to be at His death at the time of filming, was someone whom critics thought was too youthful for the role. (The film was actually given a nickname: āI Was a Teenage Jesus,ā a stab at Hunterās matinee idol-looks and blue eyes.) In fact, Hunter was made to redub all his lines in a deeper, solemn voice because his original voice just sounded too young to be taken seriously. Not to mention that the crucifixion scene had to be refilmed all because audiences at a test screening took objection at Hunterās hairy armpits. So in the final version we get the Jesus from traditional Christian art: free of any body hair except for His hair and beard.
The Holocaust has also left its mark on future Jesus films: most directors are now at pains to emphasize Jesusā Jewishness and at the same time, make attempts to dispel the notion of deicidal Jews. For its part, King of Kings makes steps to shy away from the oversimplistic characterization of Jesusā opponents that characterized former screen adaptations.
The movie emphasizes Romeās dominion over the Jews by beginning with Pompeyās siege of Jerusalem in 63 BC and marching through the Temple (killing many worshippers in the process) only to find that the fabled ātreasureā hidden therein is a scroll of the Torah. However, at the same time it makes the mistaken assumption that direct Roman rule of Judaea (as in, Roman soldiers patrolling the streets and the countryside, pillaging and setting fire to villages and crucifying people left-and-right) began at that time.
In fact, seemingly in an effort to put Jews in a more sympathetic light, the film falls into the opposite pitfall by playing fast and loose with historical facts: the opening scenes cast the Romans as merciless bullies who do nothing but mistreat and kill locals and burn towns. (Hey, thatās what the narrator - Orson Welles - said: āFor more than fifty years after Pompeyās invasion the history of Judaea could be read by the light of burning townsā!) This is in contrast to the devout and non-materialistic Jews, who value their God-given Law above all metals or jewels.
All these scenes - of Pompeyās slaughter of the Jews in the Temple, Roman soldiers pillaging and enslaving locals - invites a comparison between the horrors of the 1st century and those of the 20th: the suffering of Jews under the Romans is linked with the suffering of Jews under the Nazis. This is most evident in the scene where Roman soldiers toss the bodies of crucified Jews into a bonfire, reminiscent of how the bodies of victims in concentration camps were disposed of.
Since āCaesar could find no Jew to press Romeās laws on this fallen land,ā Herod the Great (who for some reason is identified as āan Arab of the Bedouin tribeā - he was historically an Idumaean) is appointed as āthe new, false and maleficent āKing of the Jewsā.ā A careful avoidance here of anti-Semitism becomes an unjust accusation against another ethnic group. (Personally I am somewhat reminded here of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that may just be me reading too much into it.)
āBut from the dust at Herodās feet, rebellions of Jews rose up and Herod, in reply, planted evil seeds from which forests of Roman crosses grew high on Jerusalemās hills. And Herod the Great, passing pleased, made the forests multiply.ā
Leaving the highly-oversimplified version of history presented in the film aside, King of Kings is also revolutionary in a way for emphasizing a point that Jesus films back then do not pay close attention to: the fact that crucifixion was a Roman punishment and that it was very common, a part of daily life. The aforementioned scene of soldiers mass-crucifying a crowd of Jews at the beginning of the film while Herod watches from his palanquin drives this point home. In fact, KoK is only one of the few Jesus films that I know of which show Golgotha literally littered with crosses. (Another one I know of is, somewhat surprisingly, The Last Temptation of Christ!) Despite this, KoK falls back to traditional Christian cliche by showing Jesus carrying the full cross (the people at the beginning of the film carry only their crossbeams) and by showing the crosses of Jesus and the two criminals as being visibly different compared to most of the āotherā crosses.
The Holocaust has also left its mark on future Jesus films: most directors are now at pains to emphasize Jesusā Jewishness and at the same time, make attempts to dispel the notion of deicidal Jews. For its part, King of Kings makes steps to shy away from the oversimplistic characterization of Jesusā opponents that characterized former screen adaptations.
The movie emphasizes Romeās dominion over the Jews by beginning with Pompeyās siege of Jerusalem in 63 BC and marching through the Temple (killing many worshippers in the process) only to find that the fabled ātreasureā hidden therein is a scroll of the Torah. However, at the same time it makes the mistaken assumption that direct Roman rule of Judaea (as in, Roman soldiers patrolling the streets and the countryside, pillaging and setting fire to villages and crucifying people left-and-right) began at that time.
In fact, seemingly in an effort to put Jews in a more sympathetic light, the film falls into the opposite pitfall by playing fast and loose with historical facts: the opening scenes cast the Romans as merciless bullies who do nothing but mistreat and kill locals and burn towns. (Hey, thatās what the narrator - Orson Welles - said: āFor more than fifty years after Pompeyās invasion the history of Judaea could be read by the light of burning townsā!) This is in contrast to the devout and non-materialistic Jews, who value their God-given Law above all metals or jewels.
All these scenes - of Pompeyās slaughter of the Jews in the Temple, Roman soldiers pillaging and enslaving locals - invites a comparison between the horrors of the 1st century and those of the 20th: the suffering of Jews under the Romans is linked with the suffering of Jews under the Nazis. This is most evident in the scene where Roman soldiers toss the bodies of crucified Jews into a bonfire, reminiscent of how the bodies of victims in concentration camps were disposed of.
Since āCaesar could find no Jew to press Romeās laws on this fallen land,ā Herod the Great (who for some reason is identified as āan Arab of the Bedouin tribeā - he was historically an Idumaean) is appointed as āthe new, false and maleficent āKing of the Jewsā.ā A careful avoidance here of anti-Semitism becomes an unjust accusation against another ethnic group. (Personally I am somewhat reminded here of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that may just be me reading too much into it.)
āBut from the dust at Herodās feet, rebellions of Jews rose up and Herod, in reply, planted evil seeds from which forests of Roman crosses grew high on Jerusalemās hills. And Herod the Great, passing pleased, made the forests multiply.ā
Leaving the highly-oversimplified version of history presented in the film aside, King of Kings is also revolutionary in a way for emphasizing a point that Jesus films back then do not pay close attention to: the fact that crucifixion was a Roman punishment and that it was very common, a part of daily life. The aforementioned scene of soldiers mass-crucifying a crowd of Jews at the beginning of the film while Herod watches from his palanquin drives this point home. In fact, KoK is only one of the few Jesus films that I know of which show Golgotha literally littered with crosses. (Another one I know of is, somewhat surprisingly, The Last Temptation of Christ!) Despite this, KoK falls back to traditional Christian cliche by showing Jesus carrying the full cross (the people at the beginning of the film carry only their crossbeams) and by showing the crosses of Jesus and the two criminals as being visibly different compared to most of the āotherā crosses.
S
steve53
Guest
Interesting thread.
Some thoughts:
I never saw KoK, but it had great music.
The US movie industry always has been dominated by Jews. Take that for what it is worth, though I would put a āsellā recommendation on Mel Gibson.
Pompey actually greatly respected the treasures in the Second Temple when he conquered it in A.D. 63. Josephus gives him great credit for this.
Pompey came to the East and found two Jewish Princes warring for control of the country, both sons of King Alexander (and of his wife who ruled after him for ten years). So his ally and partner in whatever atrocities happened was the former King Hyrcanus I.
As well as the Arabs, the Greek-Syrians also were the usual enemies of the Jews in the East, as well as large bands of organized robbers. And the Samaritans hated the Judean Jews. It was a complicated situation.
The usual arm-chair mantra is to blame Rome for being cruel and ruthless oppressors, but they brought peace to a very fractious area. A lot of Jews became very wealthy working with the Romans, and the Jewish population blossomed under Roman āsubjugation.ā
If there was a bad guy, it would be Herod the Great, who nearly bankrupted the east with his largely pointless building projects- in emulation of Augustus.
But without Herod, what would modern archeologists do? And cable television would be all the lesser.
Some thoughts:
I never saw KoK, but it had great music.
The US movie industry always has been dominated by Jews. Take that for what it is worth, though I would put a āsellā recommendation on Mel Gibson.
Pompey actually greatly respected the treasures in the Second Temple when he conquered it in A.D. 63. Josephus gives him great credit for this.
Pompey came to the East and found two Jewish Princes warring for control of the country, both sons of King Alexander (and of his wife who ruled after him for ten years). So his ally and partner in whatever atrocities happened was the former King Hyrcanus I.
As well as the Arabs, the Greek-Syrians also were the usual enemies of the Jews in the East, as well as large bands of organized robbers. And the Samaritans hated the Judean Jews. It was a complicated situation.
The usual arm-chair mantra is to blame Rome for being cruel and ruthless oppressors, but they brought peace to a very fractious area. A lot of Jews became very wealthy working with the Romans, and the Jewish population blossomed under Roman āsubjugation.ā
If there was a bad guy, it would be Herod the Great, who nearly bankrupted the east with his largely pointless building projects- in emulation of Augustus.
But without Herod, what would modern archeologists do? And cable television would be all the lesser.
P
patrick457
Guest
All in all, pays more attention to the historical context of the story than previous cinematic attempts, even showing the diversity of opinion present in the period, albeit again in a heavily-oversimplified form.
One of the criticisms labelled against the film as a whole is how very little time Jesus actually spends in it - a good half of the film is occupied by a subplot concerning Zealots, particularly Barabbas and his (failed) revolt. The film as we have it is actually a shadow of what it could have been: big names were involved in its production (director Nicholas Ray, producer Samuel Bronston, writer Philip Yordan, composer MiklĆ³s RĆ³zsa) but due to continual clashes over the direction of the film, the final product was left in a mess.
Still, I personally think that the film as we have it is quite ingenious in a way: many Jesus films seem to present Jesus as if He was a unique, very very hugely popular figure in His day (a picture which is kind of encouraged by the gospels themselves). In the historical context, however, Jesus is really just a blip in the radar: in a sense, He is just one of legions of prophets and messianic claimants who appeared at that time, attracting followers. So I think this ānon-attentionā to Jesus is, while quite odd for a Jesus film, at least, somewhat plausible historically.
I do however have a gripe with the oversimplified picture presented in KoK. It presents only seemingly two options of coping with Roman dominion: the path of violence exemplified by Barabbas, and the path of non-violence exemplified by Jesus. Even John the Baptist seems to be preaching a brand of eschatological judgment upon the hated oppressors (which is quite reminiscent of the theology of the Qumran sectarians, quite remarkable since this is the first major Jesus film made after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls), which is of course also put at odds with the message represented by this filmās Jesus, expressed as (in a sort of limp, modern, almost-secular sort-of-way) āpeace, love and the brotherhood of man.ā Still, the fact that this film manages to show this diversity of opinion is IMHO laudable.
Jesusā Jewishness is expressed in other ways as well. He is addressed as āRabbiā often; He utters the Jewish blessings over bread and wine at the Last Supper. Most importantly, Caiaphas is also a well-rounded figure: he isnāt a black-hearted greedy villain as in DeMilleās film of the same name, but is a more level-headed man who seems to genuinely care about the people. In fact, Caiaphas only appears in at least three scenes in the entire film - the trial of Jesus before him is not one of them.
Pilate: (To Herod; about John the Baptist) Must he agitate beneath your palace window? Send him away.
Caiaphas: The harangue is directed against you for mounting graven images on our Temple walls. The incidents in Caesarea were bad.
Pilate: The plaques stay! (To Antipas) Do something about this man.
Herod Antipas: He is harmless. He gives the people the type of entertainment they want. It is not wise to molest him.
Herodias: My husband is afraid of that madman. He thinkās heās a holy man.
(Herod storms off)
Pilate: (To his wife) A holy man who speaks words of treason. (To Caiaphas) Caiaphas! You are the high priest in that manās house of God. Do you not punish such conduct?
Caiaphas: Punishment does not dampen their ardor, rather it increases their wrath. We have found it wiser to ignore the ravings of these false prophets than to persecute them. In my opinion this man seeks martyrdom.
===
Antipas: This new prophet, Jesus, he speaks like John the Baptist. How do we know itās not the same man? Perhaps John has risen from the dead. Why did I do it? I am not an evil man. (To Caiaphas) Why did I do it?
Pilate: You should have done it the first day you imprisoned him.
Antipas: Heās John the Baptist! Heās come back in the form of Jesus!
Pilate: Superstition! Tell him it is not true!
Caiaphas: I knew John the Baptist and I have met Jesus. They are not the same man.
Antipas: Then stop him! Call your soldiers! Arrest him!
Pilate: And start a rebellion? All Rome wants is peace and taxes - I donāt intend to spend all my life in this miserable country. Where is this gathering taking place, Lucius?
Lucius: A mount in the hills of Galilee.
Pilate: Have you any suggestion?
Caiaphas: Not until I hear what the man speaks.
===
Nicodemus: Good night, Caiaphas.
Caiaphas: Do you believe in him?
Nicodemus: I do.
Caiaphas: Self-appointed saviors like your Jesus might stir up the people up against the Romans.
Nicodemus: But heās a good man!
Caiaphas: Youāre a fool, Nicodemus. Good or bad, he is a threat. If Pilate could use Jesus and his followers as an excuse he would massacre our people.
Nicodemus: What do you intend to do, Caiaphas?
Caiaphas: For the present, we will bide our time.
Like From the Manger to the Cross, actually omits Jesusā being brought before the high priest and focuses on his trial before Pilate, and even then, the incident where Pilate makes the people choose between Barabbas and Jesus isnāt directly represented on-screen. Instead, we get Jesus being interrogated by Pilate alone, with no temple priests in sight.
One of the criticisms labelled against the film as a whole is how very little time Jesus actually spends in it - a good half of the film is occupied by a subplot concerning Zealots, particularly Barabbas and his (failed) revolt. The film as we have it is actually a shadow of what it could have been: big names were involved in its production (director Nicholas Ray, producer Samuel Bronston, writer Philip Yordan, composer MiklĆ³s RĆ³zsa) but due to continual clashes over the direction of the film, the final product was left in a mess.
Still, I personally think that the film as we have it is quite ingenious in a way: many Jesus films seem to present Jesus as if He was a unique, very very hugely popular figure in His day (a picture which is kind of encouraged by the gospels themselves). In the historical context, however, Jesus is really just a blip in the radar: in a sense, He is just one of legions of prophets and messianic claimants who appeared at that time, attracting followers. So I think this ānon-attentionā to Jesus is, while quite odd for a Jesus film, at least, somewhat plausible historically.
I do however have a gripe with the oversimplified picture presented in KoK. It presents only seemingly two options of coping with Roman dominion: the path of violence exemplified by Barabbas, and the path of non-violence exemplified by Jesus. Even John the Baptist seems to be preaching a brand of eschatological judgment upon the hated oppressors (which is quite reminiscent of the theology of the Qumran sectarians, quite remarkable since this is the first major Jesus film made after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls), which is of course also put at odds with the message represented by this filmās Jesus, expressed as (in a sort of limp, modern, almost-secular sort-of-way) āpeace, love and the brotherhood of man.ā Still, the fact that this film manages to show this diversity of opinion is IMHO laudable.
Jesusā Jewishness is expressed in other ways as well. He is addressed as āRabbiā often; He utters the Jewish blessings over bread and wine at the Last Supper. Most importantly, Caiaphas is also a well-rounded figure: he isnāt a black-hearted greedy villain as in DeMilleās film of the same name, but is a more level-headed man who seems to genuinely care about the people. In fact, Caiaphas only appears in at least three scenes in the entire film - the trial of Jesus before him is not one of them.
Pilate: (To Herod; about John the Baptist) Must he agitate beneath your palace window? Send him away.
Caiaphas: The harangue is directed against you for mounting graven images on our Temple walls. The incidents in Caesarea were bad.
Pilate: The plaques stay! (To Antipas) Do something about this man.
Herod Antipas: He is harmless. He gives the people the type of entertainment they want. It is not wise to molest him.
Herodias: My husband is afraid of that madman. He thinkās heās a holy man.
(Herod storms off)
Pilate: (To his wife) A holy man who speaks words of treason. (To Caiaphas) Caiaphas! You are the high priest in that manās house of God. Do you not punish such conduct?
Caiaphas: Punishment does not dampen their ardor, rather it increases their wrath. We have found it wiser to ignore the ravings of these false prophets than to persecute them. In my opinion this man seeks martyrdom.
===
Antipas: This new prophet, Jesus, he speaks like John the Baptist. How do we know itās not the same man? Perhaps John has risen from the dead. Why did I do it? I am not an evil man. (To Caiaphas) Why did I do it?
Pilate: You should have done it the first day you imprisoned him.
Antipas: Heās John the Baptist! Heās come back in the form of Jesus!
Pilate: Superstition! Tell him it is not true!
Caiaphas: I knew John the Baptist and I have met Jesus. They are not the same man.
Antipas: Then stop him! Call your soldiers! Arrest him!
Pilate: And start a rebellion? All Rome wants is peace and taxes - I donāt intend to spend all my life in this miserable country. Where is this gathering taking place, Lucius?
Lucius: A mount in the hills of Galilee.
Pilate: Have you any suggestion?
Caiaphas: Not until I hear what the man speaks.
===
Nicodemus: Good night, Caiaphas.
Caiaphas: Do you believe in him?
Nicodemus: I do.
Caiaphas: Self-appointed saviors like your Jesus might stir up the people up against the Romans.
Nicodemus: But heās a good man!
Caiaphas: Youāre a fool, Nicodemus. Good or bad, he is a threat. If Pilate could use Jesus and his followers as an excuse he would massacre our people.
Nicodemus: What do you intend to do, Caiaphas?
Caiaphas: For the present, we will bide our time.
Like From the Manger to the Cross, actually omits Jesusā being brought before the high priest and focuses on his trial before Pilate, and even then, the incident where Pilate makes the people choose between Barabbas and Jesus isnāt directly represented on-screen. Instead, we get Jesus being interrogated by Pilate alone, with no temple priests in sight.
P
patrick457
Guest
In result, we get a kind of unconventional representation: Jesus is not dragged by anyone to the praetorium, but is seen walking alone before the impromptu court.
In King of Kings, Roman responsibility is emphasized by Pilateās words to Jesus at the beginning of His trial:
You have just been interrogated by Caiaphas. They have judged you guilty on two counts: blasphemy and sedition. This court takes no cognizance of your blasphemy, but the charge of sedition is a major offense. The rules of Roman law will prevail. I, Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, by grace of the emperor, the divine Tiberius of Rome, will judge your case. No matter what youāve done up to this moment, no matter what others have accused you of doing, I and I alone, have the authority to sentence you to be crucified or flogged or to set you free. How you conduct yourself here and now will determine your fate, do you understand?
In the film, the role of the āgood Romanā is filled in by the centurion Lucius. He refuses to participle in the massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great. He overlooks the non-enrollment of the twelve-year old Jesus. He allows Jesus to have access to John the Baptist in prison. He reports the various miracles performed by Jesus to his superior Pilate (who dismisses them as ridiculous) and witnesses the Sermon on the Mount. He thinks highly of Barabbas, serving as the latterās honorable opponent. Ultimately, Lucius even serves as a sort of defense lawyer for Jesus during His trial before Pilate (which is anachronistic - then again, the whole trial proceeds more like a 20th century American court than a 1st century one).
Despite the cosmetic attempts to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus, at the same time the film has also removed or softened the prophetic elements which would have made Jesus seem more Jewish Himself. For example, as mentioned earlier, Lucius reports Jesusā message at the Sermon on the Mount as simply consisting of āpeace, love, and the brotherhood of man.ā At the trial, Lucius attempts to explain Jesusā message of the kingdom of God to Pilate in highly-spiritualized terms (but then again this is something many Christians are guilty of). These attempts at softening Jesusā preaching and trying to inject the modern idea of a division between religion and state (something which did not exist in those days) makes it difficult to see why anyone would view Jesus as a threat to public order.
Lucius: For the benefit of the accused, so that he comprehends the gravity of his case, I request that the charge against him be repeated.
Pilate: The defendant is accused of claiming to be a leader sent by their God to liberate the Hebrew nation.
(Jesus continues to be silent)
Lucius: The accused, by neither deed nor word, has ever challenged the jurisdiction of Rome.
Pilate: During the past three years, the accused has by repeated acts and speeches disturbed the people, condemned the payment of tribute, and proclaimed himself king, and spread the word that his kingdom has precedence over and above Roman jurisdiction.
Lucius: The defendant has only spoken of the kingdom of God! He has never attmepted to usurp Roman jurisdiction over the kingdom of Judaea.
Pilate: The implication is nevertheless the same. There can be no division of authority in Judaea. A nation can have only one master.
Lucius: I repeat, my lord, the defendantās claim to a divine mission on earth does not challenge the authority of Rome. Also, the performance of miracles is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.
Pilate: The accused does not stand trial for the performance of miracles but for setting up a kingdom. Advocate for the defense will confine his argument to the issue.
Lucius: The charge is a secular issue. By treaty with Judaea, Rome has obligated itself not to interfere in religious matters.
Pilate: The court is fully aware of this evidence. The court is also aware of the unlawful assembly the accused created when he delivered his sermon on a mountain in Galilee.
Lucius: I was present at that sermon. Iāve submitted to the court a full report of the defendantās statements. Not once did he speak a word that would incite violence. On the contrary, he spoke only of peace.
Pilate: The court has also read the report of the sermon. The accused advised the people to dispose of all their possessions and follow him. How can Rome levy taxes on the people if they follow his teaching?
Lucius: Then the charge should be reduced to one of evading the tax.
Pilate: The charge stands as read! (To Jesus) Are you a king?
Jesus: It is your own lips that have called me king. My kingdom is the kingdom of God.
Pilate: Then you are a king.
Jesus: I was born and came into this world to give testimony to the truth. Whoever believes in the truth will listen to me.
Pilate: What is truth?
Jesus: Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate: Different people have different feelings. Can there not be more than one truth?
Jesus: There is only one truth, and it is written in the commandments: āBe true to God.ā
S
steve53
Guest
"Pilate: The court is fully aware of this evidence. The court is also aware of the unlawful assembly the accused created when he delivered his sermon on a mountain in Galilee.
Lucius: I was present at that sermon. Iāve submitted to the court a full report of the defendantās statements. Not once did he speak a word that would incite violence. On the contrary, he spoke only of peace.
Pilate: The court has also read the report of the sermon. The accused advised the people to dispose of all their possessions and follow him. How can Rome levy taxes on the people if they follow his teaching?"
Ridiculous on so many levelsā¦
Lucius: I was present at that sermon. Iāve submitted to the court a full report of the defendantās statements. Not once did he speak a word that would incite violence. On the contrary, he spoke only of peace.
Pilate: The court has also read the report of the sermon. The accused advised the people to dispose of all their possessions and follow him. How can Rome levy taxes on the people if they follow his teaching?"
Ridiculous on so many levelsā¦
5
504Katrin
Guest
If Jesus is your G.d how come you make an image of him.
5
504Katrin
Guest
hahaha. Iām loving it
Iāve only seen the first couple of seconds and know where this film comes from 
and Iām already looking forward to watching it when I get home later
P
patrick457
Guest
You want me to lecture and babble about the origins of the Christian use of images? It would take me a full thread!
5
504Katrin
Guest
Lol, haha. Itās all goodYou want me to lecture and babble about the origins of the Christian use of images? It would take me a full thread!
S
steve53
Guest
From Patrick:
āThis is where we come to the greatest fault of two films (which is really a fault shared by a number of other Jesus movies): they never give a clear reason as to exactly why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead. In both of these films, the viewer is simply shown the chief priests trying to have Jesus killed, but no explanation of some kind is given as to why they hate Him so much. They plot to put Him to death mainly simply because thatās what the gospels say. This, combined with the fact that the Jewish leaders are physically represented on-screen as shady, unlikeable characters effectively demonizes them, reducing them to two-dimensional villains who act against the protagonist seemingly for no reason other than the fact that theyāre just evil.ā
You hit the nail on the head, Patrick. In order to make sense of the crucifixion, the Jews really have to be demonized almost to a comic-book degree. (By the way, anyone remember the comic parody āSon Oā Godā in an early issue of the National Lampoon?!)
But the ancient Jews were a civilized people and the Christian movie caricatures are rightfully insulting.
I refer again to my favorite author on this. Looking closely at the history that Josephus and Tacitus relate about the times, and assuming a A.D. 36 crucifixion date, the actions of Caiaphas and Ananus make perfect sense. In getting rid of Jesus, they were simply protecting their political power.
Why? Tiberiusā right-hand man, General Lucius Vitellius, was on his way to Jerusalem at that time in early A.D. 36. They could not afford to have Jesus and his followers cause trouble and make them look bad in front of the powerful Vitellius.
Vitelliusā purpose was to see the Passover, but more importantly to scout out the lay of the land for a planned invasion of Arabia that was scheduled to take place the next year.
It was a pure political play and not based on taxes or philosophy or religion at all, according to one theory. So in reality, the Temple Jews were normal looking, average people. The execution of Jesus was driven by sheer self-preservation.
āThis is where we come to the greatest fault of two films (which is really a fault shared by a number of other Jesus movies): they never give a clear reason as to exactly why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead. In both of these films, the viewer is simply shown the chief priests trying to have Jesus killed, but no explanation of some kind is given as to why they hate Him so much. They plot to put Him to death mainly simply because thatās what the gospels say. This, combined with the fact that the Jewish leaders are physically represented on-screen as shady, unlikeable characters effectively demonizes them, reducing them to two-dimensional villains who act against the protagonist seemingly for no reason other than the fact that theyāre just evil.ā
You hit the nail on the head, Patrick. In order to make sense of the crucifixion, the Jews really have to be demonized almost to a comic-book degree. (By the way, anyone remember the comic parody āSon Oā Godā in an early issue of the National Lampoon?!)
But the ancient Jews were a civilized people and the Christian movie caricatures are rightfully insulting.
I refer again to my favorite author on this. Looking closely at the history that Josephus and Tacitus relate about the times, and assuming a A.D. 36 crucifixion date, the actions of Caiaphas and Ananus make perfect sense. In getting rid of Jesus, they were simply protecting their political power.
Why? Tiberiusā right-hand man, General Lucius Vitellius, was on his way to Jerusalem at that time in early A.D. 36. They could not afford to have Jesus and his followers cause trouble and make them look bad in front of the powerful Vitellius.
Vitelliusā purpose was to see the Passover, but more importantly to scout out the lay of the land for a planned invasion of Arabia that was scheduled to take place the next year.
It was a pure political play and not based on taxes or philosophy or religion at all, according to one theory. So in reality, the Temple Jews were normal looking, average people. The execution of Jesus was driven by sheer self-preservation.
- Status