Posted on 11/03/2003 7:24:24 AM PST by stainlessbanner
In a scene in the middle of The Gospel of John, Jesus is preaching to a crowd in the Temple in Jerusalem, but he is encountering resistance to his message. Turning to a crowd of Jews, he chastises them for "trying to kill me" because he is telling them "the truth I heard from God."
When the crowd tells him they are the children of Abraham and also the children of God, Jesus, in frustration, turns on them and blurts out, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my message. You are the children of your father, the devil, and you want to follow your father's desires.
"From the very beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth because there is no truth in him... But I tell you the truth and that is why you do not believe me."
The disturbing passage in the gospel is recreated, verbatim, in The Gospel of John, a three-hour film that will be released later this week in Toronto and southern Ontario. A visually sumptuous film with tremendous attention to detail in costumes and props, the film cost $20 million to make and includes a cast of 75 principal actors and 2,000 extras.
Though it debuted last month during the Toronto International Film Festival, The Gospel of John has received far less attention than the much-anticipated Mel Gibson film, The Passion of Christ, which has stirred tremendous controversy over its allegedly anti-Semitic theme.
While Gibson's focus on the crucifixion and passion of Jesus has come under fire for its message that Jews killed Christ, reviews of The Gospel of John have generally been favourable, lauding the film for its sensitive portrayal of first century intra-Jewish theological disputes.
Rendering the gospel in its entirety, word for word, creates a context to events of the time and blunts the sharper edges of the charge that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, said Garth Drabinsky, the film's Jewish producer.
In honouring the integrity of the text, the film does repeat the charge that Jewish high priests urged the Roman procurator to execute Jesus and a Jewish crowd cries for his death -- depictions that have historically led to charges of Jews as Christ-killers, Drabinsky said.
But, he added, a film based on John cannot in any way be considered anti-Semitic.
Drabinsky said the film passed muster before a panel of biblical experts -- including two Jews -- who were consulted extensively on the material.
The Gospel of John itself was written 70 years after the events it portrayed, at a time when the followers of Jesus were breaking with mainstream Judaism. All the major characters in the film are clearly Jewish, including Jesus, he said.
"It has questions that challenge one concept of Judaism and from a historic perspective, it is important for people to see this transition happening, the origins of the early church."
Drabinsky, who stresses the educational aspect of the film, acknowledged that the Gospel of John has in the past been quoted "in a narrow sense" to justify an animus against Jews.
This film, he said, "allows you to look at the entire landscape and not pick one line."
From it, "more people will have a greater understanding of the issues" and will learn that "Christ was challenging and took on the establishment," he said.
Asked whether a film depicting the gospel of John might stir anti-Jewish emotions once again, Drabinsky said, "I never thought about that at all. I produced a film that is all about a Jewish world. Everybody in the film is Jewish."
He said his interest in the subject matter goes back to his days in high school, when he was fascinated by the book The Bible as History. When he was asked by the American Bible Society to participate in a project to film the Bible's 66 books (which includes the Hebrew and Christian testaments), he readily accepted.
He said he finds the period in history fascinating and thought that a word-for-word recreation of the gospel would avoid an out-of-context, Hollywood-style treatment.
Recognizing the potential difficulties that could result if the script was not just right, his first step was to bring together the advisory committee, which recommended beginning with the Gospel of John.
"It is the best-loved and most-quoted of all the books of the New Testament," Drabinsky said. "Structurally, dramatically, it is a terrific piece of writing. In many ways it is exquisite."
To soften the text's more polemical passages, which blamed "the Jews" for a variety of sins (for example, that the Jews urged Pilate not to release Jesus, and that Jesus avoided Judea because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him), the script was based on the American Bible Society's Good News Bible. In that text, "the Jews" become "the Jewish authorities."
Alan Segal, a professor of religion at Barnard College, Columbia University, said he and the second Jewish consultant, Adele Reinhartz, "were both concerned and we wanted to make sure it was done right."
He said the Gospel of John does employ the term "the Jews" more often than other gospels, which also refer to "scribes and Pharisees," and the phrase "‘children of the devil' is a very unfortunate phrase and historically through the ages has been a problem for Jews."
Segal believes that today, "ordinary Christians will not look at it as a platform for doing violence against Jews."
But it was used when Jesus was extremely angry and it was blurted out as an oath, not as a prophecy, he said.
"The fact of the matter is, that's what's there.
"The world we live in is one where the gospels are very significant documents and strangely enough, very few people understand what's in them, Jews or Christians."
Most people, he said, are familiar with only a few verses and are not aware of the entire broad sweep of the gospels.
"If you depict an entire gospel instead of just a few verses, then you give people the opportunity to see the work in the way it was written."
Unlike the Gibson film, The Gospel of John is an accurate representation of the gospel without adding or subtracting scenes that did not appear in the original texts. "If you find what's on the screen troubling, it's because the gospel is troubling," Segal said.
They just had to throw that in there....
Yes - the Bible is really disturbing to those that wish its message wasn't true...
They just had to throw that in there....
Official Web site Here. But good luck finding it in a theater near you, unless you live in the south.
1. There's a very strange dynamic with regard to Mary Magdelene. The camera tends to linger on her, and seems to give her a more central role than John's Gospel would imply. For example, she's front-and-center (and softly lit) at both the Last Supper and at Gethsemane.
2. The costuming is too self-conscious. You can just tell that the extras are all too aware of being dressed up. And the outfits are too stereotypical (and too obviously clean and new). The basic sense is that the director said, "OK everybody -- act 1st Century Jewish...."
3. When Jesus is on the cross, and the two thieves' legs have been broken, there's a pan-out showing the thieves supporting themselves on their unbroken legs.
5. The guy who played Jesus just didn't come across as Jesus. Don't know what it is -- too girly, perhaps. (OTOH, the guy who played Pilate was perfectly cast.)
6. The guys who played the disciples were not particularly believable.
7. Most importantly, the clunky set-piece speech style of John's written Gospel does not translate at all well to realistic screenplay. I've always thought that John had stylized Jesus's speeches. The various great discourses just don't come out as if they were spoken by a man to real people.
I'm looking forward to both films. But I confess, I find the statement above implying that Gibson's work is inaccurate. He writes that "Gibson's focus [is] on the crucifixion and passion of Jesus", and that the 'the film ["The Gospel of John"] does repeat the charge that Jewish high priests urged the Roman procurator to execute Jesus and a Jewish crowd cries for his death.'
Strange, this is from the KJV Chapter 19:
6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.The author is engaged in revisionism. Even so, our sins put him on that cross - mine included - His love for us kept Him there.
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Most likely didn't do his homework--like cracking open a Bible--and listened to gossip instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.