Jesus Movie Ideas--Anyone?

[JB_Brother_4446]

Here’s a quote from Martin Goodman’s Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations:

According to the Babylonian Talmud, it was a religious duty for all Jews, men as well as women, to wear special clothes on the Sabbath: “your Sabbath garments should not be like your weekday garments…” In general, however, expenditure on personal appearance was assumed by Jews to be a characteristic of women rather than men. Jewish clothing, apart from the uniforms of the priests and Levites, seems to have been the same as that of others in the eastern Mediterranean. It would be wrong to imagine the Jewish tallit as an identity marker similar to the distinctively Roman toga; tallit in Hebrew means simply “cloak” and the use of such a garment as a dedicated prayer shawl did not begin until after late antiquity. The biblical prohibition on wearing garments manufactured from wool and linen, stated simply as a general law in Deuteronomy, was explained by Josephus as a way to preserve the unique status of the priesthood: such raiment “is reserved for priests alone.” That priests did indeed wear clothes made from such materials is confirmed in the Mishnah. When the Pharisees chose to “make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments,” they did this in order “to be seen of men;” but such ostentation must have been unusual for it to be alleged that it attracted Jesus’ criticism, and it is probably significant that no gentile pagan source betrays any knowledge of this distinctive Jewish custom. The Jewish figures in the frescoes from the synagogue at Dura-Europus have fringes on the corners of some of their cloaks, but if this reflected standard male Jewish practice, the fringes must have generally been discreet. Jewish men did not specially cover their heads. The dress of Jewish women also seems to have been much the same as that of gentile contemporaries; the Christian Tertullian remarked in Carthage at the end of the second century CE that Jewish women could be recognized as Jews by the fact that they wore veils in public, but it seems likely that such veils, common in the eastern Mediterranean, marked them out less as specifically Jewish than as simply oriental in the Roman West, where women were generally unveiled. According to the Mishnah it was regarded as immodest and shaming for a woman to wear her hair loose. The Mishnah refers to types of jewellery that a woman should not carry on a Sabbath: “She may not go out…with forehead-band or head-bangles if they are not sewn, or with a hairnet…or a necklace or nose-rings…”

Too much pride by males in their long hair was dangerously immoral, as the story of Absalom showed: he gloried in his hair, so he was hanged by it. A few hairstyles were specially forbidden by the rabbis in the Tosefta on the grounds that they looked too gentile and therefore smacked of idolatry or magic: “What are the matters which constitute ‘the ways of the Amorites?’ He who trims the front of his hair, and he who makes his locks grow long, and he who makes a baldness in front for a particular star…” But these restrictions are the exception that prove the rule, that Jews generally looked like non-Jews. Romans often noted that foreign peoples looked different from themselves, but (apart from male circumcision) they never noticed this of the Jews. One passing remark by a Roman author does, however, suggest that some Romans thought Jews had a distinctive smell: the historian Ammianus Marcellinus recorded in the fourth century CE a comment of the philosopher Marcus Aurelius in the second century CE about the Jews as malodorous. This was not a standard form of abuse of other people in the Roman world. It may even have some basis in a real difference. If modesty requires more clothing, in a hot climate old sweaty clothes may become smelly. If everyone smells equally, no one notices, and the issue of body odour (except of tanners) fails to surface in the Jewish texts.

Steve can correct me here, but I think what he meant was the mantle or cloak, aka the tallit. He did kind of pick the wrong word though: yes, the toga was a Roman citizen-only piece of clothing. The pallium (yes, that pallium) or himation is a closer analogue to the Jewish tallit.

So Jesus did not cover His Head when praying?

 

[patrick457]

My speculation was a joke.

There was a lot of animosity between the Jews and the Greek Syrians. So much so that Pompey when he sorted things out in the 60s BC made a separate “nation” out of the predominantly Greek-Syrian cities- a loose league with self-governing bodies called Decapolis. The area was patchwork, but after Herod the Great’s death it was NOT under the control of the Judean prefect or Herod Antipas or Herod Philip, but directly under the Syrian President- who was in control of all of Roman Asia.

There were lots of conflicts between them going back centuries.

Point being that the Jews would not adopt anything purposefully Greek. If anything, the late-coming Greeks (Alexander the Great) would adopt their attire from the Jews.

To be fair, many people at that part of the world pretty much dressed alike - the tunic + cloak combination - since from as far as we know. That being said, the general eastern Mediterranean fashion during the time of Jesus was Greco-Roman. Back in the pre-Exilic monarchy days, most people’s clothing were slightly different in design (but still the same general tunic + cloak pattern). Some like wealthy people actually had clothes closer to Assyro-Babylonian fashion (no surprise there - Israel and Judah were caught in the middle between the warring Egyptian and Assyrian/Babylonian Empires - if you know your OT, the kings of Judah, in a no-win situation, continually switched sides between Egypt and Assyria depending on who was gaining the upper hand at the moment - and, just like their neighboring kingdoms, were under the sphere of influence of both):

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/Special_Issues/Oct90/Lachish people.jpg




Jehu king of Israel bowing before Shalmaneser III

If you go back as far the days of the Exodus, the ‘Asiatics’ from Canaan the Egyptians knew actually dressed like this:







As for clothing terms:

The Greek word chitōn - already attested in Homer - is Semitic (more likely Phoenician) in origin; it’s probably cognate to the Semitic words for ‘linen’ (and by extension, stuff made out of linen, i.e. ‘clothing’ or ‘tunic’ or ‘mantle’): Hebrew ketonet/kutonet (the OT word for tunics), Phoenician ktn, and Akkadian kitinnu.

There’s also another (late) word for ‘tunic’: haluq. As mentioned, Jewish clothing at the time of Jesus was not really different from what people in the eastern Mediterranean generally wore. What distinguished them, however, is the tendency for most Jewish tunics to be made out of two separate pieces of cloth joined (heleq) at the shoulders. (Most Greek and Roman tunics were woven in one piece.) This two-piece tunic was not unique to Jews, but it had an advantage: it made observance of Jewish purity laws easier. So if your tunic was ritually contaminated, you could simply remove the defiled half and sew a replacement.

• The word tallit for the cloak could have come from Greek stolē and Latin stola. (Another late word, itztala, also came from Greek stolē.) The OT words for the outer mantle or robe were words like simla or salma, me’il or 'adderet (the word used for Elijah’s cloak and for royal mantles).

 

[patrick457]

So Jesus did not cover His Head when praying?

The idea of covering your head with the cloak/tallit in prayer is actually a late one, probably tied in with the tallit increasingly becoming a ritualized item you only put on in religious occasions as opposed to a piece of daily wear. You might note that in the Bible, there was really no requirement that the head be covered during prayer.

The practice actually seems to have started among the Diaspora Jews in Babylon, the same folks who produced the Babylonian Talmud. (It was unknown among the Palestinian Jews.) As the Talmud Bavli gained wide acceptance among Jews, so did the Babylonian practice. But it was still far from universal. Even in Babylon, not every Jew covered their head: only married scholars of consequence habitually did so.

In fact, the custom still wasn’t universal during the Middle Ages: Rabbi Isaac ben Moses of Vienna in the 13th century wrote with disapproval about Jews in France having the custom of reading Torah and French rabbis giving out blessings bareheaded. An earlier (12th century) French rabbi, Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel recorded that he prayed bareheaded.

One of the great Ashkenazic rabbis, Solomon Luria (aka Maharshal) in the 16th century could still write this:

“I do not know of any prohibition against pronouncing blessings with uncovered head … were it not for the fact that I am not accustomed to differ from the ancient teachers, I would be inclined to be lenient and utter blessings, or even recite the Shema, with uncovered head … the prohibition against uncovering the head even when not at prayer astonishes me; I do not know its source.”

It was only in the 17th century that the custom definitively became the de facto universal rule among Jews, and that is because they wanted to define a unique identity for themselves and wished to separate themselves from the huqqat ha-goyim “customs of the gentiles” (cf. Leviticus 18:2-3 “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices”): the Jew must cover his head while praying because the goyim - i.e. Christians - prayed bareheaded.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The idea of covering your head with the cloak/tallit in prayer is actually a late one, probably tied in with the tallit increasingly becoming a ritualized item you only put on in religious occasions as opposed to a piece of daily wear. You might note that in the Bible, there was really no requirement that the head be covered during prayer.

The practice actually seems to have started among the Diaspora Jews in Babylon, the same folks who produced the Babylonian Talmud. (It was unknown among the Palestinian Jews.) As the Talmud Bavli gained wide acceptance among Jews, so did the Babylonian practice. But it was still far from universal. Even in Babylon, not every Jew covered their head: only married scholars of consequence habitually did so.

In fact, the custom still wasn’t universal during the Middle Ages: Rabbi Isaac ben Moses of Vienna in the 13th century wrote with disapproval about Jews in France having the custom of reading Torah and French rabbis giving out blessings bareheaded. An earlier (12th century) French rabbi, Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel recorded that he prayed bareheaded.

One of the great Ashkenazic rabbis, Solomon Luria (aka Maharshal) in the 16th century could still write this:

“I do not know of any prohibition against pronouncing blessings with uncovered head … were it not for the fact that I am not accustomed to differ from the ancient teachers, I would be inclined to be lenient and utter blessings, or even recite the Shema, with uncovered head … the prohibition against uncovering the head even when not at prayer astonishes me; I do not know its source.”

It was only in the 17th century that the custom definitively became the de facto universal rule among Jews, and that is because they wanted to define a unique identity for themselves and wished to separate themselves from the huqqat ha-goyim “customs of the gentiles” (cf. Leviticus 18:2-3 “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices”): the Jew must cover his head while praying because the goyim - i.e. Christians - prayed bareheaded.

So how would you portray Jesus’ “brothers”?

 

[patrick457]

So how would you portray Jesus’ “brothers”?

Well, I personally would be in the camp that would leave any particular interpretation open to the viewer. Jesus would refer to them as His ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ and, being extended family, they would live in the same house (along with aunts and uncles), but I’d never explicitly say that they are Mary’s biological children.

I’ll admit that for all its faults, one thing I liked about that recent film Killing Jesus is how it devoted some screen time to James the Just, showing him living and interacting with Jesus and Mary. Seriously, in many films it’s as if the ‘brothers’ didn’t exist at all, much less the ‘sisters’. I guess it might be their way of ‘playing it safe’.

 

[Eliza10]

Well, I personally would be in the camp that would leave any particular interpretation open to the viewer. Jesus would refer to them as His ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ and, being extended family, they would live in the same house (along with aunts and uncles), but I’d never explicitly say that they are Mary’s biological children.

I should certainly hope not!

 

[patrick457]

I should certainly hope not!

Only one Jesus film broke the convention: The Color of the Cross mentioned earlier. Not only are the ‘brothers’ presented as actual biological brothers, Joseph is shown as being still alive.

 

[patrick457]

I think the clothing, for instance might be a problem. Hollywood has always made Jews of Jesus’ time look like Arabs,but in reality they actually dressed a lot more like Greeks.

I’m replying to this post again.

Some people out think that there was a specific ‘Jewish’ costume, and that clothing designs were preserved intact over 2-3000 years. That’s why in many biblical and Jesus films the Jews are sometimes shown sporting modern-looking kippahs/yarmulkes and tallitot.

But in reality, it kind of seems that there was no originally particularly distinctive ‘Hebrew’ way of dressing in any ancient period: in the OT period, the Israelites mostly would have pretty much looked like the Canaanites around them (influenced by the two big empires Assyro-Babylonia and Egypt). During the Greco-Roman period, Jews in Palestine and the eastern Mediterranean in general looked pretty much like most other peoples of the eastern Mediterranean (Greco-Roman fashion): those in Persia dressed like Persians. In the early Middle Ages, Jews were still not too different appearance-wise from non-Jews: in Arab areas, Jews dressed like Arabs; in Europe, they dressed like Europeans. Even in the 19th century, Jews in the Holy Land wore pretty much the same type of clothes as their Muslim neighbors.

It was only in the high Middle Ages (mainly in Europe) that the Jews began to have unique costumes of their own, and usually it was something imposed on them: they were made to wear distinctive clothes in order to mark them as Jews. Y’know, things like the yellow badge or the ‘Jewish hat’. It’s really from this that the idea that Jews dress ‘different’ come from.

 

[patrick457]

(Apologies; I didn’t make it past the 20-minute edit limit)

As I noted earlier, since the 19th century some artists who made biblical art went to the Holy Land and simply copied the architecture and the clothing that they saw there: never mind that in some cases, the stuff they depicted are actually from a later period. When they saw Jews there (dressed the same as Arabs), who knows? They probably thought that the Hebrews wore the exact same clothes 2000 years ago - or even during the Old Testament period.

That’s why in a number of current popular biblical art, two millennia worth of biblical personages - from Abraham to Jesus - all look like as if they were from 19th-century Palestine, dressed in early modern Arab/Bedouin fashion. (More specifically, they all look like white Europeans cosplaying as 19th-century Palestinians/Arabs/Bedouins. ) Seriously, Noah and Abraham and Isaiah and St. Joseph wear the same clothes, even though they’re all separated by centuries or millennia.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Only one Jesus film broke the convention: The Color of the Cross mentioned earlier. Not only are the ‘brothers’ presented as actual biological brothers, Joseph is shown as being still alive.

I think that was Clopas.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Well, I personally would be in the camp that would leave any particular interpretation open to the viewer. Jesus would refer to them as His ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ and, being extended family, they would live in the same house (along with aunts and uncles), but I’d never explicitly say that they are Mary’s biological children.

I’ll admit that for all its faults, one thing I liked about that recent film Killing Jesus is how it devoted some screen time to James the Just, showing him living and interacting with Jesus and Mary. Seriously, in many films it’s as if the ‘brothers’ didn’t exist at all, much less the ‘sisters’. I guess it might be their way of ‘playing it safe’.

A.D. The Bible Continues pulled that off with James being Jesus’ “friend”. One thing I actually respected about the series.

 

[patrick457]

I think that was Clopas.

No, that was Joseph. Mary refers to him by name in one scene.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No, that was Joseph. Mary refers to him by name in one scene.

Oh!

 

[patrick457]

Jesus Barabbas:

It’s almost a given nowadays that Barabbas is shown as an armed Zealot, or at least a cutthroat. Personally, I’d like to see this alternative interpretation I encountered: Jesus Barabbas was simply framed or scapegoated. IMHO that kind of explains neatly why the Jewish leaders would choose him as their prisoner of choice against Jesus of Nazareth, and why Pilate would have no hesitation in releasing him.

Note that in Mark’s gospel, Barabbas is never said to have been an actual rebel: he was simply “jailed with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Luke follows suit: Barabbas was just someone “who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder” - doesn’t really indicate that he did commit insurrection and murder. Only John really calls Barabbas a lestes ‘bandit’, and there’s a possibility that that’s just a shorthand term - he was convicted of banditry - not an indictment of guilt.

A handful of scholars in the past have actually observed this (Allan Menzies in 1901; Robert Eisler in the 1930s; Joel Carmichael in 1962; Paul Winter in the 60s-70s; Fr. Raymond Brown made the same observation but somehow reverted to the ‘criminal Barabbas’ picture), but they were in the minority. Most people simply took it for granted that Barabbas was guilty. Because, hey, that makes for good sermon material (the guilty is released while the innocent suffers and all that; the temple priests were so nasty that they were willing to release a bandit, etc.)

For all of his problematic 'Jesus never really died but fell into a swoon& theory, I think Hugh Schonfield (The Passover Plot, the book) made a rather interesting observation: could Jesus Barabbas have been (mistakenly) arrested when the authorities were looking for Jesus of Nazareth? In fact, could Jesus Barabbas have actually been the son of the famous Rabban Gamaliel? That might explain his name, here interpreted as bar-Rabban ‘son of the Rabban’, why Matthew would call him a “notable” prisoner (in a number of translations loosely rendered as ‘notorious’), and why the Jewish leaders would ask for him. (Both Eisler and Carmichael had similar ideas: Barabbas may have been the son of a rabbi who was arrested by mistake.)

I think that could make a rather interesting portrayal:

A Jewish rabbi (and the son of a rabbi) named Jesus (not Jesus of Nazareth), aka ‘Bar-Rabban’, gets mixed up with a minor riot. At this time, Jesus of Nazareth was already a wanted person by the authorities. This particular Jesus gets arrested mainly because he had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having the same name, and also being a teacher.

Since this particular Jesus was also a respected figure in his own right, his supporters would have come asking for his release. The Jewish authorities who want to see Jesus of Nazareth dead takes advantage of the situation: all they had to do was to convince Pilate that he got the wrong Jesus, and arresting the wrong guy was a big mistake (their evidence for that would be Barabbas’ supporters ). They now have the real Jesus that was causing all the trouble.

In fact, we could also use ‘Barabbas’ as a key figure in Jesus’ death: Jesus hears that the authorities have arrested a ‘Jesus’, and that strengthens His resolve to hand Himself over to the authorities, since He was the one that they want, after all. He voluntarily surrenders Himself to death so that Jesus Barabbas might live.

Hey, come to think of it, we could tie it up to the positive portrayal of Rabban Gamaliel in Acts (assuming that we’ll portray him as Barabbas’ dad). We could make the reason why Gamaliel was lenient towards Jesus’ followers is because his son gained freedom (literally) because of Jesus’ sacrifice. In other words, he was indebted to Jesus.

Obviously, this is all just speculation on my part, but since we’re making a movie (and not a history book) I think I could let my imagination run free.

 

[friardchips]

Jesus Barabbas:

It’s almost a given nowadays that Barabbas is shown as an armed Zealot, or at least a cutthroat. Personally, I’d like to see this alternative interpretation I encountered: Jesus Barabbas was simply framed or scapegoated. IMHO that kind of explains neatly why the Jewish leaders would choose him as their prisoner of choice against Jesus of Nazareth, and why Pilate would have no hesitation in releasing him.

Note that in Mark’s gospel, Barabbas is never said to have been an actual rebel: he was simply “jailed with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Luke follows suit: Barabbas was just someone “who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder” - doesn’t really indicate that he did commit insurrection and murder. Only John really calls Barabbas a lestes ‘bandit’, and there’s a possibility that that’s just a shorthand term - he was convicted of banditry - not an indictment of guilt.

A handful of scholars in the past have actually observed this (Allan Menzies in 1901; Robert Eisler in the 1930s; Joel Carmichael in 1962; Paul Winter in the 60s-70s; Fr. Raymond Brown made the same observation but somehow reverted to the ‘criminal Barabbas’ picture), but they were in the minority. Most people simply took it for granted that Barabbas was guilty. Because, hey, that makes for good sermon material (the guilty is released while the innocent suffers and all that; the temple priests were so nasty that they were willing to release a bandit, etc.)

For all of his problematic 'Jesus never really died but fell into a swoon& theory, I think Hugh Schonfield (The Passover Plot, the book) made a rather interesting observation: could Jesus Barabbas have been (mistakenly) arrested when the authorities were looking for Jesus of Nazareth? In fact, could Jesus Barabbas have actually been the son of the famous Rabban Gamaliel? That might explain his name, here interpreted as bar-Rabban ‘son of the Rabban’, why Matthew would call him a “notable” prisoner (in a number of translations loosely rendered as ‘notorious’), and why the Jewish leaders would ask for him. (Both Eisler and Carmichael had similar ideas: Barabbas may have been the son of a rabbi who was arrested by mistake.)

I think that could make a rather interesting portrayal:

A Jewish rabbi (and the son of a rabbi) named Jesus (not Jesus of Nazareth), aka ‘Bar-Rabban’, gets mixed up with a minor riot. At this time, Jesus of Nazareth was already a wanted person by the authorities. This particular Jesus gets arrested mainly because he had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having the same name, and also being a teacher.

Since this particular Jesus was also a respected figure in his own right, his supporters would have come asking for his release. The Jewish authorities who want to see Jesus of Nazareth dead takes advantage of the situation: all they had to do was to convince Pilate that he got the wrong Jesus, and arresting the wrong guy was a big mistake (their evidence for that would be Barabbas’ supporters ). They now have the real Jesus that was causing all the trouble.

In fact, we could also use ‘Barabbas’ as a key figure in Jesus’ death: Jesus hears that the authorities have arrested a ‘Jesus’, and that strengthens His resolve to hand Himself over to the authorities, since He was the one that they want, after all. He voluntarily surrenders Himself to death so that Jesus Barabbas might live.

Hey, come to think of it, we could tie it up to the positive portrayal of Rabban Gamaliel in Acts (assuming that we’ll portray him as Barabbas’ dad). We could make the reason why Gamaliel was lenient towards Jesus’ followers is because his son gained freedom (literally) because of Jesus’ sacrifice. In other words, he was indebted to Jesus.

Obviously, this is all just speculation on my part, but since we’re making a movie (and not a history book) I think I could let my imagination run free.

Is this a real film or simply a virtual story?

We know He died for all of our sins, and these no doubt, included those of Barabbas too.

 

[steve53]

Sometimes the most logical explanation is the truest. Pilate was simply jacking with the chief priests. He picked a prisoner who was notorious for murdering Jews and then asked the priests, or the crowd if there was one, if he should release this man, Barabas, or the supposed King of the Jews, Jesus.

Pilate had an unusual sense of humor and detested the Jews.

 

[patrick457]

Sometimes the most logical explanation is the truest. Pilate was simply jacking with the chief priests. He picked a prisoner who was notorious for murdering Jews and then asked the priests, or the crowd if there was one, if he should release this man, Barabas, or the supposed King of the Jews, Jesus.

Pilate had an unusual sense of humor and detested the Jews.

Well, nowhere is it really stated that Jesus Barabbas killed people himself. The sources aren’t as definitive as we would like to think. For example, the earlier gospels Mark and Matthew.

Mark: “there was a man called Barabbas, bound with the insurrectionists who (oitines, plural) had in the insurrection committed murder.” Those who committed murder were “the insurrectionists;” Barabbas is simply mentioned as being jailed with them. Mark does not specify that he took part in the riot or did any killing: his guilt is not really established.

Matthew describes him as desmios episemos ‘notable/famous/distinguished prisoner’. The Greek adjective episemos doesn’t really have a negative connotation in itself, although in many Bibles it is rendered as something like ‘notorious/infamous prisoner’. So for Matthew, Jesus Barabbas was ‘notable’, but at the same time he is completely silent about what crime Barabbas committed, for that matter whether he committed any crime at all, or whether or not his being ‘distinguished’ had anything to do with his supposed crime or for something else entirely.

Only the later gospels - Luke and John - really come close, describing Barabbas as “the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder” and a lēstēs (‘robber’/‘bandit’), respectively, but then again, you might argue that the descriptions here are still open: then as now, you could get thrown into prison and accused of a crime that you really didn’t commit.

 

[patrick457]

Is this a real film or simply a virtual story?

We know He died for all of our sins, and these no doubt, included those of Barabbas too.

No, it isn’t. That was just a sort of ‘it’d be nice if we had something like this’-sort of post. AFAIK no Jesus film had ever attempted to do that kind of portrayal yet. All of them take it for granted that Barabbas was guilty.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No, it isn’t. That was just a sort of ‘it’d be nice if we had something like this’-sort of post. AFAIK no Jesus film had ever attempted to do that kind of portrayal yet. All of them take it for granted that Barabbas was guilty.

So how would you portray Pilate?

 

[patrick457]

So how would you portray Pilate?

I can tell you how I will not portray Pilate: not a mere spineless coward, and not a mere cruel butcher.

There are four Pilates that have stood out to me the most. Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita’s grumpy Pilate with a headache, the BBC’s 2008 The Passion’s Pilate with the Irish accent (The Passion IMHO has the most balanced and interesting portrayals of Pilate and Caiaphas that I know of to date, which is why I like that series), Robert Hardy’s Pilate in Dennis Potter’s play Son of Man (granted, this Pilate is on the ‘butcher’ end of the spectrum - he’s even portrayed as a sort of proto-persecutor of Christians, having one of his maids who believed in Jesus scourged to death - but the way this violent Pilate is sort of obsessed with and haunted by Jesus and His teaching to love one’s enemies is rather cool), and Telly Savalas’ Pilate in The Greatest Story Ever Told.

Oh yeah, special mention: the Pilate of the medieval English mystery plays. In one (the Towneley/Wakefield plays), he’s depicted as a negative, Antichrist-y character, describing himself in exalted terms (dominus dominorum ‘lord of lords’, vir deitatis et maiestatis ‘man of god-like nature and majesty’). He’s set up as a foil for the silent, meek Jesus. He even gets to deliver this rather boastful (and blasphemous) soliloquy, where he - ironically - compares himself to David:

Myghty lord of all
Me Cesar magnificavit.
Downe on knees ye fall!
Greate god me sanctificauit,
Me to obey over all
regi reliquo quasi Dauid.