I think the second problem for Jesus films is due to the nature of the gospels themselves: outside of the Passion narratives, they are strung together stories with little narrative connection. (I know, I know, it’s more nuanced than that…but the point being that a film director just can’t make a film about the gospels without making it seem like a random string of events with largely different people/places). It is this problem that the Chosen so masterfully addresses: make the focus on the characters in the story, not Jesus, and thereby give a narrative form to what are otherwise brief, well-known stories. The healing at the well, whose brother is made to be a militant apostle, is a great example.
There have also been some flourishes in the show that have indicated some real artistic meditation/thought by the writers, for example when Jesus and John discuss the Torah and John is given the first insights into his eventual theology.
It may seem this way given the style of books we're accustomed to reading in the 21st century, but there are clear narratives to each Gospel, and the events are amazingly well arranged.
You might enjoy a book like Reading the Gospels Wisely.
I agree that the gospels do have narrative structure when considered as products of the first century. Perhaps the closest to a “modern” narrative would be John’s gospel, but even that is very difficult to tackle given the heavy theology interwoven throughout. In fact, it was seeing scenes from John’s gospel in The Chosen that really alerted me to the talent of the filmmakers. Seeing them pull of John 3 in a meaningful and natural way was phenomenal, as they avoided the potential for dry/impersonal theology by wrapping it in the deeply personal experience of Nichodemus.
Everyone (or at least every Christian) has their own version of Jesus in their head and when media is produced about him, they correlate that version with their own.
'The Passion of Christ' is a great example of something that can be truly emotive for some, but not for others. I found it barely interesting and frankly not sure how much it has to do with Christianity, or rather in a pedantic way. It was nice production design, neat to see 'what it would have looked like' and I'm actually sympathetic to why 'it's good in a way' ... but to me it's all kinds of besides the point.
Populism is perhaps more real in Faith than it is in politics, there are various lowest common denominators that can appeal to broad audiences and suck a lot of wind out of the situation.
I was mainly there for the Aramaic.
If you've not had the experience, I strongly recommend attending a Stations of the Cross in a Catholic cathedral on a Good Friday if possible. You'll see what the movie is derived from far better, and the Catholics know how to put on a good show.
Though the Crucifixion is part of Christ’s sacrifice, I continue to find it an odd thing to focus on, especially in the context of the resurrection.
Being a catholic doesn’t excuse everything.
This is essentially a few decades after the fact.
It's very challenging to really try to push Mathews gospel much further than 80s AD - and even that date has some serious problems.
You seem to have cherry picked certain (older) views... it was certainly popular in the last century to try try push the dates well into the second century but this approach is very fraught and can't be well supported at present.
That’s literally 75 years after the fact. Scholar put Mathew between 80 and 110 years after the fact so a century as I correctly pointed.
I understand you don’t like being faced with the fact that the gospels were written with a clear political agenda long after what they depict and that the canon is mostly an exercise in late Roman politics. The fact remains.
You can try to push out mathew to 110 but it gets kinda tough....if there is that much of a gap between mark and mathew why do we have lots of mathean quotes in the early church and virtually none from mark? Kinda stretches credulity, for me at least.
I feel that if Mark really did enjoy a lengthy period as the of extant gospel it should have acquired a sort of prominence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Chronolog...
When I google Colin Humphreys, he seems to be a physicist who dabbles in bible studies. According to Wikipedia, his argument was that the Last Supper occurred on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday, not that he disagreed with anyone about the year.
To start, as with esoteric Judaism, Islam and Platonism, God is conceived as an ineffable oneness. Not a person in the sky, but a divine perfect ”One god” or principle. Hard to talk about, but many books have been written on the topic. The diversity in the cosmos comes from the emanation of the One; this emanation is known as the logos. The logos is typically translated (very poorly, IMO) as “the word.” The logos, as eternal emanation of the one, is therefore metaphorically conceived as “the son of the father.” Jesus is the logos, or in some interpretations, he is the incarnation of the logos (ie, “the word” made flesh).
What’s important to realize here is that this belief in the one (god the father) and the emanation from the one (the logos) is completely orthodox across Catholicism, eastern orthodox and most Protestant interpretations. I think most Christians and nonChristians would find that surprising.
In Acts 18:24, Paul says that Apollos of Alexandria was able to preach this philosophy without even knowing about Jesus. That’s likely because of the massive influence of Philo of Alexandria (b. 25bce) who wrote extensively about the logos as “the son of god.”
Philo also wrote prolifically about the early preChristian communities around Alexandria, the Therapeutae, which Jesus likely encountered as a child—he also wrote about the Essene sect that most resembles the Judaism of Jesus. I’ve assembled and highlighted some of those texts here. At the end, there is also a text from Pope Benedict that formalizes the connection between Jesus and the Essenes.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JATMRSh4b6wlFlYWw8t1FdrG...
I hope some people enjoy this rabbithole. Happy to provide more refs.
I read recently an excellent discussion on the Samaritan penteteuch, a masters thesis from 2008 - the first direct to English translation ever done from Samaritan oral language. There are clearly an evolving set pre-masoretic texts in pre Christian antiquity and we can see some of the not-quite MT types being used in the vulgate and others.
I suspect, like how the dead sea scrolls illuminated some factional rivalries in second temple Judaism- if we can find more texts from this period it'll better flesh out when, how, and to what extent Greek philosophy influenced the various sets. there is an old idea that the synthesis of Logos and Judaism occurred in John's gospel but this seems undermined already...
When I get more time, I want to invest in reading the Mandaen literature. They worshipped John the Baptist —and their religion still exists!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Robert-Powell/dp/B075B...
Both of those are your interpretation of others' interpretations, and I question whether either of those is a widely held view. Personally, I don't see the media as depicting him as zen-like and I definitely don't read him as having anger-issues in the Bible.
That passage appears in the context of Jesus and his disciples making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Passa, which takes place in April. Just after the fig tree incident comes the purification of the temple.
Everyone who has a fig tree in the garden knows that some varieties bear an early crop, which is what Jesus was hoping to find. And no one swears at trees, as the webcomic helpfully points out.
The only possible interpretation is that that tree wasn't a fruit tree at all but some random wild tree from the fig genus that doesn't bear edible fruit. The Jesus that appears in the gospels is averse to showy and thoughtless practice, and this is yet another instance.
You can make fun of the anti-homosexual tendencies of evangelicals as much as you like and they'll just reply that queers are gross and the bible says it. But if you point out that the prohibition of homosexuality appears in the context of cultic practices you meet them on their own ground and imply that they don't understand their own foundational text.
Maybe you're thinking of the Old Testament, but there's no Jesus there.
(Also HN seems to have a fairly high tolerance for pedantry, so I hope nobody gets angry if I interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Mormon, is in fact, Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, the Restored Church. Mormon is not a religion unto himself, but rather another prophet of a fully restored Christian church made complete with the other apostles and prophets of the past and divinely inspired direction as continuously revealed by prophet Russel M. Nelson.
Many people have heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the nickname for members of Church which is widely used today is “Mormons,” and many of its users are unaware that they prefer to called members of the Church, of Jesus Christ.
There really is a Mormon, and members of the restored church believe his teachings, but they are just a part of the gospel doctrine they believe. Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon; another testament of Christ that complements, confirms, and clarifies the Old and New Testament. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of the religion, but arguably useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete religion. The Book of Mormon is normally studied in combination with the rest of the restored gospel, the whole system is basically Christ’s church with the fullness of the gospel revealed. All the so-called “Mormons” are really members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
Everyone knows this. They're just not going to use an awkwardly-long term to refer to them. We don't refer to "members of the Roman catholic church", we just say catholics.
(And for anyone else wondering what all the pedantic fuss is about the name "Mormon", there's some good background here: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/10/13/jana-riess-battle... .)
I’m an exmo, so I’m well aware of what Mormon means. Including that it was widely accepted as an informal demonym for many years by LDS church leaders, and only recently became officially anathema. The reasoning presented for the change has not been terribly sound, I’m afraid, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a future prophet reversed it, as other decisions have been reversed.
It was divisive in the early church. Marcion of Sinope who compiled what might be the first known canon was a proponent that the god from the Old Testament and the one from the New Testament are different in the second century. He had quite a following but all his writings are lost. He was excommunicated for this view but Marcionism had a lasting influence on the church.
Just did a deep dive into the Bible, several versions (King James, etc.). No "Mormon" shows up anywhere in the text of the Old or New Testaments.
"Mormon" only shows up in the Book of Mormon, which most Christians do not accept as doctrine.
Through a peculiar turn of events, the nickname for members of Church which is widely used today is “Mormons,”
Because this was the term that Mormons themselves used to refer to themselves for over a century, see for example the (fka) Mormon Choir, the Mormon College, etc. It is only very recently that they began shifting their own self-identification away from the use of Mormon.
And there's destroying that fig tree.
His reported interactions with the Pharisees aren't exactly a model of calm detachment either.
You're thinking of Yahweh, the Israelite God, who develops into something much more abstract by the time of Jesus who was generally not 'angry'.
To me, and most Christians, it looks like jesis is appropriately angry, sad, happy and generally experiences a full range of human emotions in the gospels.
Whereas the God of the 'Old Testament' has some harsh actions and policies, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, threatening to punish the Israelites if they didn't follow his commands, telling Abraham to sacrifice is son, banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, etc. There's nothing comparable to that at all in the New Testament. The New Testament is fundamentally different in tone from the Old Testament in this manner.
At least up until recently, it would have been 'Old Testament Fire and Brimstone' , 'Jesus / New Testament, Peace and Love' in popular imagination.
There certainly is. In fact, at one point, Jesus even brings up Sodom as an example!
See Matthew 23, where Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees "children of hell" and says that all the righteous blood shed since Abel will be required of them, prophesying the Siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ("not one stone will be left upon another.") Or the famous incident where he drives people out of the temple with a whip. Or when he says hate is the same sin as murder and lust the same as adultery, and those who commit them will end up in hellfire (in the Sermon on the Mount, no less.)
Or the reason he so enraged the Jewish authorities, he repeated claims that they were going to lose the kingdom. For example, after he healed the centurion's servant: "When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Or when he says the Capernaum is going to have a worse time than Sodom: " And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
Or his comments on people that don't forgive: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."
Or the Parable of the Vineyard.
Or this particular memorable castigation from John: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
This is a view in the popular imagination, but it isn't really supportable after reading the gospels.
Yahweh was literally flattening cities, killing Egyptians with plague, destroying Cannanties by force, requiring his followers to sacrifice their children (!).
None of the 'hard advice' given by Jesus in the examples are remotely equivalent to this, nor do they paint a picture of an angry or despotic figure at all.
Jesus is laying Moral Judgment. That's not the same thing we see in the Old Testament.
As a programmer, I identify most closely with the Mathew character.
U2 is a Christian band, they make Gospel music. They just stopped saying that back in the 1970's but if you look at their lyrics it becomes immediately obvious. In fact, blatant. Literally their hit song "He Works in Mysterious Ways". They don't even hide it, yet, nobody is really aware.
That to me is mind-blowing: how something can be so obvious, right in front of our eyes, not even denied ... and we don't see it.
Mr. Rogers Neighbourhood is 100% Ministering without apparent Ministering.
'Children of Men' is possibly my favourite film, it's literally a Nativity Story.
... but the last thing on the planet I would ever want to listen to is a 'Christian Band' that calls themselves a 'Christian Band'.
U2-charist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2charist
The imperfect human desires before and during the vision also carry on well past harmless observation and affect the man in a way that would have concerned the one who figuratively(?) advised to pluck out an eye rather than be burdened by sin caused by it. The temptations are incongruent with the refutation of temptation and self-knowledge displayed in the wilderness.
That said! I agree the film is a marvelous examination of human weakness and faith in this life.
It depicted a man tempted to.