Killing Jesus

[KSU]

Before I reply to your first reply, I’ll reply to this other one.

Well, look at Braveheart.

You’re right - if we’re talking about John’s gospel, where the scourging is placed in the middle of the trial before Pilate. In Matthew and Mark though, the scourging is a prelude to crucifixion and is at the end of the trial, after the sentence.

Then [Pilate] released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified. (Matthew 27:26)

So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (Mark 15:15)

Now of course a common method among us Christians is to conflate and harmonize all these details together: so the scourging in Matthew and Mark is combined with the one in John. (Or, if we’re going by the more literal approach here, say Jesus was scourged twice.) But I think a nice question to ask ourselves is: why do we conflate and harmonize?

We have many sources describing the person to be crucified being whipped and tortured first, but almost none of them explicitly describe how violent it could be. The only thing that comes close is this quote from Seneca:

Can anyone be found who would prefer to be driven to that infelix lignum (‘unfortunate wood’), already disabled, already distorted, the breast and shoulder deformed into an ugly hump, he would have many reasons to die even beside the crux, than to draw the breath of life among such numbers of outdrawn torments.

Really, our main source come from descriptions of non-crucifixion whippings slaves and non-Roman citizens were subjected to (which were at times brutal). For example, the Jewish historian Josephus talks about a man named Jesus son of Ananias/Ananus who in the 60s kept prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. The “leading citizens” were disturbed with his words and beat him, but to no avail. He was then brought before the Roman governor, who had him whipped some more - “flayed to the bone with scourges” (Jewish War 6.5.3) - but still he kept prophesying. Exasperated, the authorities set him free, considering him a madman and a minor annoyance. This Jesus lived for a few more years until he finally died when his predictions came true in 70 - he was hit by a stone hurled from a Roman catapult. In another passage Josephus also talked about some Galileans opponents of his who he had scourged “until the entrails of all of them were exposed” (Jewish War 2.21.5)

You might extrapolate something out of these accounts (i.e. pre-crucifixion floggings were probably similar to these floggings, since crucifixion was also a slave’s/non-citizen’s punishment), but at the same time you need to take into account that crucifixion is meant to keep the victim as alive as possible up on that cross and suffer (so you don’t want the person to die during or soon after the scourging), whereas in some of these texts the scourging itself is meant to kill. So I highly doubt that a pre-crucifixion scourging would be of the same intensity as these two whippings in Josephus.

In the film, Jesus is first beaten with wooden rods. Then comes the flagrum or the flagellum which the soldiers use on Jesus with gusto until He is reduced to a bloody pulp - front and back. If they did that to me, I’d have probably died of traumatic shock. Forget crucifixion or even setting me free.

(Of course one might say, ‘Well Jesus is God, He could have taken in more physical suffering than a normal human could.’ This is where you see some disagreement: one could also argue that since Jesus suffered in His humanity, wouldn’t there be a potential that this idea that ‘Jesus drew on His divine strength to endure superhuman tortures’ could be construed as Jesus somehow ‘cheated’ a bit to suffer some more?)

P.S. Just a little suggestion. Can you divide the quotes you’re answering to when you’re quoting me? (Use the quote tag: QUOTE ] /QUOTE ]) The way you quote kinda makes it a little hard to read for me. Thank you.

Because neither Mark nor Matthew contradict John’s far more detailed account, there is little need to “conflate or harmonize.” Because your opinion regarding Pilate’s intention toward Jesus is contrary to John’s account, your opinions regarding both the reason for and the severity of the scourging is highly suspect.

patrick, are you saying that John’s account is not historical? I am having difficulty following you.

As to my method of responding to your posts, I’m sorry but it’s the only method I use. I like it because it’s easy and direct, i. e., my response to a particular assertion is in bold and follows immediately after the assertion, so there should be no confusion between us or for any others wishing to join in or monitor our discussion.

It’s much more difficult for me to respond to the type of segmented quote you suggest in a manner other readers can easily follow, so please bear with me. I will try to be more clear.

 

[on_the_hill]

P.S. Just a little suggestion. Can you divide the quotes you’re answering to when you’re quoting me? (Use the quote tag: QUOTE ] /QUOTE ]) The way you quote kinda makes it a little hard to read for me. Thank you.

Pardon me, is there an easy way to do that? I always get garbled up using copy and paste.

 

[KSU]

patrick, thanks for your review in #37 and #38. You obviously are well versed in these matters. My personal view of what Jesus really looked like is the original Divine Mercy Image, painted in Vilnius under St. Faustina’s supervision.

O’Reilly should have hired you as a consultant–but, on the other hand, then there would have been three of you who are a bit off-base regarding the historical aspects of Scripture

 

[patrick457]

Because neither Mark nor Matthew contradict John’s far more detailed account, there is little need to “conflate or harmonize.” Because your opinion regarding Pilate’s intention toward Jesus is contrary to John’s account, your opinions regarding both the reason for and the severity of the scourging is highly suspect.

patrick, are you saying that John’s account is not historical? I am having difficulty following you.

I think we kinda have to clarify at first. If you’re going to ask me, I believe John’s gospel and the other three gospels are historical, in that they retell factual events, and true, in that they contain truths. I do not, however, believe that they are strictly literal records.

The way I see it, you have the ‘fact’, the what-happened, the historical reality, whatever you want to call it. On the other hand, you have four writers taking that ‘fact’ and retelling it from their own perspectives and on their own terms, adapting and refitting it to suit their purposes in the course of the retelling, and producing four different accounts. (This is why you might notice I speak of the gospel writers ‘retelling’ rather than simply ‘recording’.) Anyone who looks for ‘just the unvarnished facts’ will of course be frustrated at this, but the burden really lies in those people who read the gospels ultra-literally as if they are mere dry transcripts of the ‘fact’ - as I said, just like objective, dispassionate real video footage.

(It’s not just Christians who fall into reading the gospels ultra-literally, but also anti-Christians. IMHO they’re right about the diagnosis - there are differences in the gospels that one cannot reconcile so easily; but they are wrong in the prescription - it makes the gospels false, unreliable, etc.)

As to my method of responding to your posts, I’m sorry but it’s the only method I use. I like it because it’s easy and direct, i. e., my response to a particular assertion is in bold and follows immediately after the assertion, so there should be no confusion between us or for any others wishing to join in or monitor our discussion.

It’s much more difficult for me to respond to the type of segmented quote you suggest in a manner other readers can easily follow, so please bear with me. I will try to be more clear.

Point taken.

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU: patrick, are you saying that John’s account is not historical? I am having difficulty following you.

I think we kinda have to clarify at first. If you’re going to ask me, I believe John’s gospel and the other three gospels are historical, in that they retell factual events, and true, in that they contain truths. I do not, however, believe that they are strictly literal records. OK, that’s fair.

The way I see it, you have the ‘fact’, the what-happened, the historical reality, whatever you want to call it. On the other hand, you have four writers taking that ‘fact’ and retelling it from their own perspectives and on their own terms, adapting and refitting it to suit their purposes in the course of the retelling, and producing four different accounts. (This is why you might notice I speak of the gospel writers ‘retelling’ rather than simply ‘recording’.) Again, that’s fair, provided “different accounts” is not confused with “differing” accounts. The different accounts do not contradict each other.

Anyone who looks for ‘just the unvarnished facts’ will of course be frustrated at this, but the burden really lies in those people who read the gospels ultra-literally as if they are mere dry transcripts of the ‘fact’ - as I said, just like objective, dispassionate real video footage. Agreed.

(It’s not just Christians who fall into reading the gospels ultra-literally, but also anti-Christians. IMHO they’re right about the diagnosis - there are differences in the gospels that one cannot reconcile so easily; but they are wrong in the prescription - it makes the gospels false, unreliable, etc.) **Agreed, again, provided you agree that the accounts are not irreconcilable. It seems, at present, patrick, that you and I may differ only on the degree of historical value that should be accorded extra-Scriptural sources where there are seemingly differing accounts vis-a-vis acknowledged “historical” Scriptural accounts. **

 

[Larry1700]

I was looking forward to the movie, and I really wanted to like it. I watch O’Reilly fairly often, and agree with him perhaps 75% of the time. Nevertheless, I was very disappointed.

Right or wrong, I tried watching the movie from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know anything about Jesus, the gospel, etc. From that perspective, it leaves what I think was a very distorted and shallow understanding.

My problems with the movie (in no particular order), are:

1. Jesus’ eyes/facial expressions gave me, my son and my DIL the distinct impression that Jesus was discovering who he was. I commented to them that I’m not 100% certain that Jesus knew everything from his birth, and that perhaps the Father revealed it to him at the necessary times/places. But of course at age 12 he commented to Mary & Joseph, “Didn’t you know that I must be about my Father’s business?” I haven’t looked up the Church’s position on this.
2. I was surprised that John had to tell Jesus who he was.
3. I understand that O’Reilly’s goal was to tell the story without the miracles, angels, etc, in order for it to depict the secular motivations behind his crucifixion. However, when one miracle was shown–the boy possessed by demons–the scene gave the strong appearance of an epileptic seizure.
4. When the women were given the burial shroud offered by Joseph of Arimathea, the way they wrapped the body was not in accordance with the Shroud of Turin image. Yes, yes, I know that the Church has not yet officially determined the Shroud of Turin to be authentic. I just wish it would have been wrapped lengthwise (foot to head, over the head, then back to the foot), to at least leave open the possibility.
5. After the crucifixion scene, Pilate’s conversation with the Jewish priest, and then his wife, gave the distinct impression that there were no guards posted at the tomb. Obviously, that would mean that someone definitely could have stolen the body. This is obviously in stark contrast to the Gospel.
6. In the tomb scene, were two women and two men. I thought the first entrants were just the women. John ch. 20 says Mary Magdalene initially went alone, then ran back to tell the apostles.
7. After the Resurrection, there is a scene showing Peter in his boat, catching nothing. Instead of John chapter 21’s account of Jesus appearing on the shore, telling Peter to cast his net on the right side of the boat, the scene shows Peter saying a prayer, followed by the net being filled with fish. In the scene, Peter takes it as a sign that Jesus has risen. No appearance to Peter, or any of the other apostles/disciples.

Maybe my high expectations were part of the reason I disliked the movie so much, but based on the above points, I believe I had very valid reasons.

 

[KSU]

I was looking forward to the movie, and I really wanted to like it. I watch O’Reilly fairly often, and agree with him perhaps 75% of the time. Nevertheless, I was very disappointed.

Right or wrong, I tried watching the movie from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know anything about Jesus, the gospel, etc. From that perspective, it leaves what I think was a very distorted and shallow understanding.

My problems with the movie (in no particular order), are:

1. Jesus’ eyes/facial expressions gave me, my son and my DIL the distinct impression that Jesus was discovering who he was. I commented to them that I’m not 100% certain that Jesus knew everything from his birth, and that perhaps the Father revealed it to him at the necessary times/places. But of course at age 12 he commented to Mary & Joseph, “Didn’t you know that I must be about my Father’s business?” I haven’t looked up the Church’s position on this.
2. I was surprised that John had to tell Jesus who he was.
3. I understand that O’Reilly’s goal was to tell the story without the miracles, angels, etc, in order for it to depict the secular motivations behind his crucifixion.However, when one miracle was shown–the boy possessed by demons–the scene gave the strong appearance of an epileptic seizure.
4. When the women were given the burial shroud offered by Joseph of Arimathea, the way they wrapped the body was not in accordance with the Shroud of Turin image. Yes, yes, I know that the Church has not yet officially determined the Shroud of Turin to be authentic. I just wish it would have been wrapped lengthwise (foot to head, over the head, then back to the foot), to at least leave open the possibility.
5. After the crucifixion scene, Pilate’s conversation with the Jewish priest, and then his wife, gave the distinct impression that there were no guards posted at the tomb. Obviously, that would mean that someone definitely could have stolen the body. This is obviously in stark contrast to the Gospel.
6. In the tomb scene, were two women and two men. I thought the first entrants were just the women. John ch. 20 says Mary Magdalene initially went alone, then ran back to tell the apostles.
7. After the Resurrection, there is a scene showing Peter in his boat, catching nothing. Instead of John chapter 21’s account of Jesus appearing on the shore, telling Peter to cast his net on the right side of the boat, the scene shows Peter saying a prayer, followed by the net being filled with fish. In the scene, Peter takes it as a sign that Jesus has risen. No appearance to Peter, or any of the other apostles/disciples.

Maybe my high expectations were part of the reason I disliked the movie so much, but based on the above points, I believe I had very valid reasons.

The reason for authoring the book and movie was to add the person of Jesus to O’Reilly’s “Killing” series, whereby Bill reportedly amazed people with little or never before known historical facts about the death of famous people.

When I saw O’Reilly, flushed with success about his series, announce that Jesus would be the next famous person in the “Killing” series, my heart sank. Bill is a good guy–magnanimous and a far better person than his liberal (political and religious) enemies in the media want us to believe. He is, however, a tad arrogant, and his Catholicism juuust a bit outside traditional. (Just ask Raymond Arroyo and Father Jonathan, Bill’s friends). My fear was that Bill would attempt to continue amazing people now by asserting that, somehow, Catholic teaching about why Jesus was killed is wrong.

And so it came to pass. The movie’s (more so the book’s, I’m told) reason for being is O’Reilly’s assertion that Jesus was killed, not for religious reasons as John tells us, but for Roman and Jewish secular reasons, e.g., rabble-rousing about paying taxes, as I’ve heard Bill say on his program.

 

[oneofmany]

I hear it’s getting many good reviews. It will be shown again on the FOX network. On Friday and Saturday or Sunday.

CNN is showing the Bible, AD on Easter.

 

[oneofmany]

Well I started watching it but like others had to quit. With Jesus walking around looking befuddled and not really sure of what He is doing or why I stopped watching. I did tune in later and saw the crucifixion. When the miracles are left out and just showing the history that can be confirmed by others, the life of Jesus gets hollow really quickly.

The person O’Reilly wrote it with, Dugard, was suppose to do all the studying on the history of Jesus and O’Reilly was to put it in novel form. The miracles can’t be confirmed in scientific terms so he left them out and when a miracle happens all they do is look to heaven and smile. I guess that is to tell us something special happened.

I’m glad O’Reilly wrote a book that confirms Jesus did live, etc. when we now have people who want to say it’s all a made up story but it should have been a documentary if you just want to tell the history.

 

[Glo918]

I just watched it last night and was totally disgusted with it.

He portrayed Jesus as someone who had an AHA! moment after meeting John the Baptist.

He portrayed Mary as being worried about her son being involved in sorcery as though she had no clue as to Jesus being born to be our Savior or even a great Prophet. Nothing about her visit with Gabriel or finding him in the temple after being lost 3 days and his reply as to being about “his Father’s business” as a child.

According to this version, John the Baptist was the only one who knew anything about Jesus’ coming and WHO he was. No one knew Jesus was anyone special until AFTER he was baptized.

It diminished Jesus and Mary. Peter and Jesus were portrayed as co-workers before Jesus started preaching. Where is that historical fact? He has Jesus sitting in the boat with Peter praying with Peter for fish. Where is that historical fact? He has Jesus SURPRISED to see the fish appear and tells Peter “it is a sign”. It just goes on and on like that.

Much if not MOST of it was NOT in the bible.

Don’t know where he got his “facts” but I’m not surprised by anything O’Reilly would do as its always all about him and his huge EGO. We are supposed to just take his word for it all I guess.

I hate that anyone who didn’t know the truth would have their first introduction to Jesus’ story from this piece of FICTION.

And they couldn’t find a real Jew to play Jesus? Really??

Horrible Movie. Don’t waste your time!!

 

[Layp3rs0n]

I just watched about twenty minutes and I here’s my review: Ugh! Good thing Jesus of Nazaretyis also on. A.D. is on next. At least their Jesus is Divine!

 

[7_Sorrows]

I guess I am glad I wasn’t able to watch it then. We don’t have cable anymore or satellite. The other shows based on O’Reilly’s books were good. I thought this one would be good too.

 

[Mark121359]

The Blessed Virgin Mary expresses concern that Jesus is a sorcerer?..Huh? Did Mary develop amnesia and forget about the visit of the Angel Gabriel and the miraculous virginal conception of God Incarnate by the Holy Spirit? Did she suffer a head injury and forget about the angels, shepherds or the three Kings that came to pay homage to the new born King? How about Simeon’s prophecy? This movie is border line heresy. I stand corrected…it ***is ***HERESY! Here’s another big clue. You know this movie is bad when The National Catholic Reporter loves it and proclaims it to be remarkable!

Peace, Mark

 

[patrick457]

Okay, as promised, my review of the film. Sorry it took me so long.

All in all, the film’s really a mixed bag: the first half was good (if a little uneven movie-wise), the middle was nice, then it really kind of falls apart in the final ten to twenty minutes.

First, I’ll list four of the (mainly) good points of the film:

• I laud the production for finally managing to do away with the ‘white Jesus’ stereotype. Haaz Sleiman’s clearly non-European Jesus who doesn’t the Queen’s/King’s English has set a new standard for future film Jesuses - or at least, it should. And, yeah, I think Sleiman mostly did a pretty good job with what was given to him. (That being said, I didn’t really like Sleiman’s hair and beard - particularly the beard: it looked obviously fake. It might deserve a mention in ‘bad costumes in biblical films’. )
• I would also give the production points for certain minor details, like giving Jesus’ ‘brother’ James some screen time (though one would wish that the film depicted the other ‘brethren of the Lord’ as well - though I guess one ‘brother’ is enough). I believe I mentioned or implied this earlier, but I’m really all for Jesus’ other family members to get some screentime. Usually, Jesus films are like those paintings in holy cards, where it’s just Jesus, Mary and Joseph living in this house in Nazareth. But in the culture of the time, it wouldn’t be uncommon for members of the extended family to share a single home, because they spoke of ‘family’ in terms of the extended one, not the nuclear one. So the movie at least gets one detail right by showing a family member other than the holy trio living with them. (No, I don’t believe that this film’s depicting James is tantamount to a denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary: there’s a difference between outright denial to leaving it open.) Especially since St. James the Just isn’t someone you see often in a Jesus film, despite him being one of the important figures in the early Church.
• Another minor detail I really liked was giving at least one more of Jesus’ female disciples - Joanna wife of Chuza - a bigger role than is usually assigned to her. Very often, when Jesus films focus on a female disciple of Jesus (excluding mother Mary), it’s usually Mary Magdalene by default. So Joanna having a larger role in this production is really a breath of fresh air. I really liked the idea of Joanna being related with the woman taken in adultery.
• I really liked the performance of the Herods; I’d even say that they’re probably some of the best performances of this production. The actor playing Herod the Great was very good; shame that he only had, like, approximately less than ten minutes’ worth of screen time. Antipas and Herodia(s) are also great too. (Meanwhile, I’ll admit I wasn’t much impressed with Pilate and his wife. Particularly his wife.)

 

[patrick457]

Now, for the minus points:

• The decision to ‘naturalize’ the Jesus story, and the stuff it led to.

I’ll say Killing Jesus the movie is pretty much what John’s gospel would look like if you remove all the supernatural stuff from that gospel. Killing Jesus is all in all very Johannine in structure (literally so), especially during the passion sequence. For instance, the film omits the actual Last Supper, focusing instead on the washing of the feet (as in John’s gospel). I could laud the film for being brave enough to take this direction, since the institution of the Eucharist is one of the cliche ‘must-shows’ for a Jesus film. Really, it’s very rare for a Jesus film to omit it; barring the 2003 film The Gospel of John - which is, as per the title, an adaptation of John - the only Jesus film I know to omit it is the 1969 televised version of Dennis Potter’s play Son of Man, where the film immediately jumps from Judas going to Caiaphas to betray Jesus to Jesus in Gethsemane, omitting everything that happened in the upper room entirely.

Where I don’t laud the film, though, is where this ‘let’s be naturalistic / cut out the miracles’ can sometimes lead the filmmakers. For example, after Jesus’ baptism He goes to the desert to pray and discern God’s will. The film of course decides to cut the supernatural away, so no temptation or even an actual voice of God is heard. What we’re basically left is a short scene of Jesus praying in the desert. There’s not even some sort of internal struggle on Jesus’ part or anything that could have this scene worthwhile. If you ask me, they might have as well just cut the whole scene out, because it’s pretty pointless other than as eye candy: ‘Oh look! This is where the gospels say Jesus was tempted by Satan!’

Peter Chattaway, in his mini-review of the film, pretty much sums it up:

I understand why the filmmakers took the approach that they did. I also recognize that the film’s vagueness on everything to do with the supernatural can be traced back to the original book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, which as I recall keeps the miracles almost entirely offstage, effectively reducing them to rumours and hearsay.* But this approach poses big dramatic and historical problems.

Dramatic, because unlike a history book that can look at people from the outside and tell us what they told each other, a film needs to draw us into the characters by letting us experience what they experience. Instead, we get sequences like the one where Jesus tells John the Baptist he’s going to the desert, and then we see him come back, but we have no idea what happened in between. Did he have an encounter with Satan? Did he “hear voices” like John did? How did his time in the desert affect his awareness of who he was and what he believed God wanted him to do?

This approach really becomes problematic by the end of the film, where instead of a resurrection sequence you get a very vague, ambiguous ending.

The late Roberto Rossellini did it better: his Jesus film Il Messia was also naturalistic in the same vein as this film, but his empty tomb sequence was much better than Killing Jesus’. In fact, I’ll say it was better because Rossellini decided to end the film then and there, with Mary (in his version, it’s Mary the mother of Jesus) discovering Jesus’ body missing from the tomb and Mary raising up her hands to heaven in joy. Some folks of course might go up in arms with even that portrayal (‘Why didn’t he show the resurrection explicitly?’), but IMO it’s a hundred times better than the version in Killing Jesus, where the film decides to show an analogue to the resurrection appearances - only, there is no Jesus to appear before Peter or any of the disciples. Which makes it pointless, really.

So the main fault of Killing Jesus is that it showed too much, and too little. (And the advantage Rossellini had is that he left his ending open to interpretation.) Why bother putting a post-‘resurrection’ scene when there’s no clear resurrection (or at least, some suggestion along the lines that the disciples really thought that Jesus was raised rather than some vague Bultmannian ‘His presence lives on in us’-esque ending)? Which is a shame, really, since Killing Jesus is the only film I know that shows both miraculous catches of fish (Luke 5; John 21). Again Chattaway:

[T]his approach poses big dramatic and historical problems. … [H]istorical, because you simply can’t make sense of the New Testament if you don’t take into account the fact that the earliest Christians claimed that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. Either the Resurrection appearances happened or they didn’t — and how you answer that will have huge implications for how you see the early Church — but this film tries to chart a third course that doesn’t commit to either option.

You might say it kinda ruined the ending for me. ​

So my verdict for the film is: promising - really had something going for it - but ultimately ended up a wreck.

 

[patrick457]

Sort of. It’s common knowledge that Mel Gibson altered his original script, which was closer to Scripture, to placate Jewish objections.

Gotta answer this.

Actually, what happened was, that Jewish groups took issue to the inclusion of the line from Matthew 27 (“His blood (be) on us and on our children”) in the film, citing of course its potential to foment anti-Semitism, which it kinda did in the past. They argued that this inclusion violated the Guidelines for the Presentation of the Passion (released by the USCCB in 1988):

c. A clear and precise hermeneutic and a guiding artistic vision sensitive to historical fact and to the best biblical scholarship are obviously necessary. Just as obviously, it is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that “it’s in the Bible.” One must account for one’s selections.

In the above instances, for example, one could take from John’s gospel the phrase “the Jews” and mix it with Matthew 27:24-25, clearly implying a “blood guilt” on all Jews of all times in violation of Nostra Aetate’s dictum that “what happened in his passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living without distinction nor upon the Jews of today.” Hence, if the Matthean phrase is to be used (not here recommended), great care would have to be taken throughout the presentation to ensure that such an interpretation does not prevail. Likewise, the historical and biblical questions surrounding the notion that there was a formal Sanhedrin trial argue for extreme caution and, perhaps, even abandoning the device. As a dramatic tool, it can too often lead to misunderstanding.

Under pressure, Mel did agree to do something about the scene. His solution was rather loophole-y: he didn’t remove the scene (you can still hear Caiaphas shouting the line in Aramaic); but he removed the subtitle. (To be fair, Mel originally didn’t even plan to have subtitles at all.)

 

[patrick457]

The late Roberto Rossellini did it better: his Jesus film Il Messia was also naturalistic in the same vein as this film, but his empty tomb sequence was much better than Killing Jesus’.

Speaking of Il Messia, I can’t help but find a number of parallels between this film and Killing Jesus.

• Both are in the ‘naturalistic’ tradition of Jesus films (as most post-1950s/60s Jesus movies are): miracles and the supernatural are muted or cut out entirely.

Now where the difference lies is that Killing Jesus is really an Anglophone/Hollywoodish film - allowing itself moments of extravagance / eye candy / fanciness here and there - whereas Rossellini’s is in the tradition of Italian neorealism: just the bare minimum is shown, matter-of-factly, to the point that you may be excused if you thought the film was ‘boring’ because no big action really takes place. Case in point: the baptism scene. Both films omit the supernatural - no overt voice of God or anything - but while in Killing Jesus, the scene is still set dramatically - Jesus and John all by themselves, dramatic background music, nifty change in camera angles, well-timed dialogue and delivery - it’s all low-key:Il Messia Jesus is simply one of those people in line to be baptized by John, John sees Jesus, John and Jesus exchange the perfunctory dialogue of Matthew 3:14 (direct and to the point), John baptizes Jesus, Jesus leaves, John baptizes next person in line. All this in one long take, with no dramatic background music.

• Both are Johannine in overall structure, Il Messia even more blatantly so (it even places the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry as in John; whereas Killing Jesus has the “Destroy this temple” saying at the beginning, with the cleansing proper at the end)
• Both begin with a prophet (Samuel choosing the Israelites a king (1 Samuel 8) in Il Messia; Isaiah appearing to Herod in a dream in Killing Jesus*), Herod the Great and the visit of the Magi. (To make the parallel more interesting, the same actor (Franco-British actor Vernon Dobtcheff) played Samuel and Isaiah in both films.) In fact, both films have this sort of focus on the Herods (and John the Baptist as a corollary)
• Both are shot in Morocco (Actually, Morocco, the city of Ouarzazate specifically, is pretty much the default location of choice for many Bible / period films nowadays )
• Both films have a scene where Jesus fixes a fishing boat. (Il Messia was unique in that it showed Jesus doing some carpentry work here and there even after He began His ministry. In an original idea, it even had Jesus and disciples start a small self-sustaining community - a la a kibbutz - before John the Baptist’s death necessitated them to split up.)

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU:
It’s common knowledge that Mel Gibson altered his original script, which was closer to Scripture, to placate Jewish objections.

Gotta answer this. …
Under pressure, Mel did agree to do something about the scene. His solution was rather loophole-y: he didn’t remove the scene (you can still hear Caiaphas shouting the line in Aramaic); but he removed the subtitle. (To be fair, Mel originally didn’t even plan to have subtitles at all.)

I didn’t know that, patrick. Makes me happy that Mel didn’t cave completely. That is Mel being Mel. Scripture is not PC.

Returning to Killing Jesus, it seems ironic that the raison d’etre of O’Reilly’s movie was to present the Passion as historical rather than Scriptural. But, like Scripture, history is not PC, yet the movie was–it wasn’t going to offend Jews or atheists. If it offended Catholics, however, that’s just too bad. That’s O’Reilly being O’Reilly.

Early on in this thread, I said my heart sank when O’Reilly announced he was going to add Jesus to his “Killing” series to show us what we never knew about Jesus. As my kids would say, “Yeah, right.”

In any case, patrick, thank you for all the insights into the world of cinema concerning the Jesus movies. Very impressive.

 

[patrick457]

I didn’t know that, patrick. Makes me happy that Mel didn’t cave completely. That is Mel being Mel. Scripture is not PC.

Returning to Killing Jesus, it seems ironic that the raison d’etre of O’Reilly’s movie was to present the Passion as historical rather than Scriptural. But, like Scripture, history is not PC, yet the movie was–it wasn’t going to offend Jews or atheists. If it offended Catholics, however, that’s just too bad. That’s O’Reilly being O’Reilly.

Speaking of that: one thing I didn’t like about Killing Jesus is that Temple guard who was mocking Jesus by the crucifixion sequence. The guy didn’t seem to have any other reason for existing (in the film) other than for someone to revile Jesus. In other words, he was kind of the token mocker. And he was kind of hammy to boot. (“Mock him for his lies!”) Really, that was the point where I felt the film was going downhill.

IMHO, by necessity for a Jesus movie to work it does have to take liberties, because the gospels by themselves are not filmable. (I think Mel’s film worked to an extent mainly because the meat of his film was based more on the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Maria de Agreda - which obviously fill in the gaps of the gospels.)

The synoptic gospels lack most of the things that we now expect in the story of someone’s 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 Jesus’ 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 Jesus’ 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 Judas’ 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.

• E.P. Sanders

And this was also what was lacking in Mel’s film: he didn’t really give Jesus’ opponents a credible personality.

I think The Passion of the Christ is a film that would only make real sense if you are a Christian or are at least familiar with the Jesus story. In other words, you need to have a sort of background knowledge before viewing this film. Without any exposition, Caiaphas and the Jewish leaders are simply villains, of the two-dimensional type: Mel doesn’t really spell out the motivation for them wanting Jesus dead other than because that’s what happened in the original story. And that’s I think what really fueled the charges of anti-Semitism against TPotC. (That, and the costumes. Why are the chief priests always depicted as dour bushy old men in flowing dark robes? It didn’t help that they just not had to act like stock villains, but also look ominous and nasty. )

You might say that Mel at this point is being accurate to the gospels (which frankly, also doesn’t give Jesus’ opponents - “the Pharisees,” “the chief priests” - much character or motive for opposing Jesus), but IMHO this is one of those places where filmmakers are allowed to (or even should) take some license. A black and white, good vs. evil story (where the hero can do no wrong and the villain can only act evil) might have worked fifty years ago, but nowadays audiences are expecting characters to show, well, character.

Early on in this thread, I said my heart sank when O’Reilly announced he was going to add Jesus to his “Killing” series to show us what we never knew about Jesus. As my kids would say, “Yeah, right.”

O’Reilly was just speak advertising-ese.

I should add: I think Killing Jesus (the movie) is a different creature from Killing Jesus (the book). Now I haven’t read the book yet, but I think they pretty much are. Movies adapted from / inspired by non-fiction ‘history’ books usually are; they usually have little in common with the book in question other than the title and some token elements. Other than that, the bulk of the film is usually the scriptwriters’ creation.

 

[KSU]

…I think The Passion of the Christ is a film that would only make real sense if you are a Christian or are at least familiar with the Jesus story. In other words, you need to have a sort of background knowledge before viewing this film.

That’s a good point if a viewer is to fully appreciate the film. Mel didn’t want to make a Hollywood movie for purposes of entertainment. He wanted to take a shot at a religious documentary about the singularly important reality of everyone’s life: God’s love for us, which surpasses all understanding. Don Quixote had set an easier task for himself.

You might say that Mel at this point is being accurate to the gospels (which frankly, also doesn’t give Jesus’ opponents - “the Pharisees,” “the chief priests” - much character or motive for opposing Jesus), but IMHO this is one of those places where filmmakers are allowed to (or even should) take some license. A black and white, good vs. evil story (where the hero can do no wrong and the villain can only act evil) might have worked fifty years ago, but nowadays audiences are expecting characters to show, well, character.

Yes, which illustrates the uncommon, non-politically correct risk Mel and his backers took when “Hollywood” (I understand) said no to Mel. To the extent the risk succeeded, it did so only because Mel was accurate to the gospels.

I should add: I think Killing Jesus (the movie) is a different creature from Killing Jesus (the book). Now I haven’t read the book yet, but I think they pretty much are. Movies adapted from / inspired by non-fiction ‘history’ books usually are; they usually have little in common with the book in question other than the title and some token elements. Other than that, the bulk of the film is usually the scriptwriters’ creation.

** Because of the terrible movie and what I was told about the book’s “historical” contra-Scriptural reason for the killing of Jesus, I never read the book, either. But I hope I’m wrong. **