Since the program is a dramatization of what might have happened after Jesus was crucified I didn’t pay much attention to it at first, but the past few weeks I’ve caught bits and pieces of it. I have to admit they consider some of the very same possibilities I’ve thought about over the years so maybe I should have been watching more. This week they’re showing the first meeting between Peter and Paul after Paul’s conversion. I’ve often wondered how that first meeting must have gone. Saul/Paul may have been more brutal than we can imagine in his persecution. What must Peter have thought when Paul first came to him? That meeting is a major part of this week’s episode in dramatic fashion.
For some reason most of the actors are British, but IMDB doesn’t list the show as being released in the UK.
Anyone else watching? I’m wondering what others think about it.
G:
“What must Peter have thought when Paul first came to him?”
If Paul had disappeared into Arabia for 3 years, is it likely he started out corresponding with Peter in some way before hand.
He must have had a good idea of how Christians would greet him. I can’t imagine him just showing up at Peter’s front door.
My impression is Peter would have been, at least, somewhat suspcious.
spiker said
G:“What must Peter have thought when Paul first came to him?”
If Paul had disappeared into Arabia for 3 years, is it likely he started out corresponding with Peter in some way before hand.
He must have had a good idea of how Christians would greet him. I can’t imagine him just showing up at Peter’s front door.
My impression is Peter would have been, at least, somewhat suspcious.
The program presents Saul as seeking out Peter for prosecution before his conversion. He stalks Peter’s daughter through the streets of Jerusalem and storms into their home uninvited demanding to see Peter to arrest him. He has a gang of men searching for Peter through the streets of Jerusalem day and night. Finally, after his conversion he immediately seeks out Paul to tell him what has happened. Soon after Paul’s own men seek out Paul to arrest him.
Not saying it happened, or anything close to it, but this seems as plausible as anything else in my opinion.
G:
I managed to make it to ep 3 last night. I think we can say this is a sixth gospel: The fifth Gospel, as you might recall, gets created by smashing the other four together; the sixth comes with new and creative changes.
An ep familiarizing you with the disciples would have been helpful.
Maybe the last week and arrest.
Interestingly enough you have Pilate declaring he sees no problem with Jesus and the next scene is Jesus being hammered to the cross.
John -and not the pesky Nicodemus, helps Joseph of Arimathea bury the body.
Caiaphas begins the mission to the gentiles: He tells the crowd Pilate is there to worship their god.
Pagan gods, per Pilates wife, vouch for JC
Not only is it interesting to see Pentecost as a Jewish holiday, but the drone strikes on the tomb and later the apostles at Pentecost
and If you weren’t familiar with the stories, you might think Jesus was some Extraterrestrial. JC Phone home.
Peter was the more interesting character. It’s interesting that while Peter’s denial is vehement, Jesus lament, Father why have you forsaken me, is almost a mumble.
Did I see Herod Antipas giving someone the finger while he was waiting for the Romans to let him pass?
Watching the Zealots I had to wonder where the heck was Jim West? And what, no Ninja’s!?
It’s odd that they omitted Peter trying to walk on the water, but I’m guessing they only had enough budget for some explosions
and CGI.
“Soon after Paul’s own men seek out Paul to arrest him.”
I suspect that this is why Paul went to Arabia for 3 years.
The series is out on DVD now, and I am watching it. As Spiker said, it is a fifth gospel because sometimes it bears little relation to the story in the New Testament. Because I’m interested in apologetics, I found two things particularly interesting.
First, Jesus appeared to all the disciples except Thomas. When Thomas walked in and did not believe the other disciples when they told him, one of disciples commented that they had all seen him at the same time. This is the standard apologetic rebuttal to the hallucination theory of Jesus’ appearances, which neither Thomas nor anyone else had yet suggested.
Second, the ascension shows Jesus walking up a hill with all sorts of glorious clouds and Angels in the background. Once again, the ascension is one of those things in the Bible that is just too silly looking to portray. Showing Jesus rising up into a cloud would look stupid people who have seen rockets do the same thing. We now have two Roma Downey versions of the ascension. The first one looks rather like Scotty beaming Jesus up to the enterprise. The second is a far more bombastic event, but neither of them look anything like what described in Acts.
I am not into binge watching, and look at the rest of it later.
I never watched the whole thing. I’m interested in fictionalized accounts of what might have happened between all the episodes in the Gospels and the time between Jesus and Paul which is the main reason I was interested. I know it was geared towards Christians to make them happy viewers, but it was better than nothing. As a big fan of scifi there are a surprising number of books out there filling in the blanks of the Gospels. They probably aren’t what people think of as scifi, but rather “speculative fiction”. A private hope of mine has been that one day Bart will write a fictionalized account of Jesus and Paul, but I know it will never happen. He’s one of the few qualified people who could do it right.
gmatthews said
” Finally, after his conversion he immediately seeks out Paul to tell him what has happened. “
I’m guessing this MIGHT be a matter of keeping up the tension in the story. Just editing out the stuff in between. You want people sitting on the edge of their seats, so to speak. There were scenes that clarified details in my mind about those events and it was interesting to see a recreation. Certainly, there’s no reason they couldn’t simply transition with Three years later…., but my own take is the story is told the way it is to maximize its entertainment value.
spiker said
…., but my own take is the story is told the way it is to maximize its entertainment value.
I just finished watching the second DVD. The filmmakers are definitely using standard Hollywood techniques to maximize entertainment value. They even have some flashy, unrealistic and pointless pyrotechnics at the end of the last episode on the DVD.
Another standard storytelling technique is to combine multiple historical characters into one composite. In Matthew 27:54, a centurion crucified Jesus and said “Truly this man was God’s Son!” In Acts Chapter 10 Peter met the Centurion Cornelius, the first Gentile convert. In the miniseries, so far, Cornelius seems to be the only Centurion in Palestine. He does all of Pontius Pilate’s dirty work, including crucifying Jesus, but he is obviously becoming a troubled soul who will later accept Christ. This makes for fine drama, and the actor is really good. However, it departs considerably from the biblical text.
The filmmakers also trimmed lengthy speeches. In Acts Chapters 6 and 7, Stephen is arrested and then harangues the Sanhedrin with a very lengthy and undiplomatic speech (Had I been his lawyer, I would’ve advised against that particular line of argument). In the miniseries, Stephen wanders into the Sanhedrin and says a few uppity words before getting stoned. Although the filmmakers must add in a great deal to flesh out the story, they also ruthlessly cut the actual biblical dialogue to make the story move along.
I found it interesting that they included the story of Ananias and Sapphira, an episode I thought they might gloss over completely. However, no one ever puts money at Peter’s feet as in Acts 5:4. You just can’t put any lipstick on that pig.
spiker said
LS:
A bit off topic, but what do you think of the idea that Luke’s work is a legal brief for Paul’s trial. Is this just clever speculation or
is there actually some substance to the idea?
I have never heard that idea. Some apologists claim Paul employed Greek and Roman legal principles, such as when he supposedly presented multiple forms of evidence to the Areopagus (council) in Athens (Acts 17:22-23). William P. Broughton, The Historical Development of Legal Apologetics 25 (Xulon Press 2009). I would not doubt that Paul, an educated man, might have known some law, but who says that Luke and/or Acts is some sort of legal argument?
Lawyerskeptic said
who says that Luke and/or Acts is some sort of legal argument?
You know I don’t remember, but I only gave it a second thought because
I don’t know if a.) Romans would have used anything like a legal brief
if they did, it probably would not resemble a modern one. b.) I don’t really have
a good understanding of what a legal brief or its history;
however, my impression is Roman trials(let’s say this is based on the biblical trial of Jesus) didn’t have anything resembling a modern adversarial process.
However, I did find, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I see several problems here; though I am sure a practicing attorney would easily
demolish this; however, it might make a solid chapter in your book.
I think the author is a bit confused.
1.) He writes,
The fellow who was teaching pointed out certain legal aspects of what Luke was talking about in the text,” he says. “He would mention these along with other factors, but I would seize on the legal points because I was able to add to them and apply them. I decided this was a legal brief, but that idea seemed so far out that I decided to research this and see what other people said.”
It seems he is confusing hearing details of a legal situation and deciding how he would handle it and an actual legal document with specific findings.
2.) ” If the Book of Acts was written as a legal document, that suggests that its claims are well-documented and could have been verified at the time of its writing. The Emperor had an office of investigators charged with researching specific facts for upcoming trials. Mauck argues that “Theophilus,” to whom the book is addressed, was a pre-trial investigator for Nero. The Gospel of Luke, also addressed to Theophilus, was probably also written as background reading in anticipation of a trial.”
The whole thing rests on IF. There’s a recent trend in apologetics to make arguments
assuming the data is well researched and valid.
” The Emperor had an office of investigators charged with researching specific facts for upcoming trials. Mauck argues that “Theophilus,” to whom the book is addressed, was a pre-trial investigator for Nero.”
Seriously!? Sounds like a lot of bunk, but if true wouldn’t Luke be the investigator?
It hasn’t even been established that this is a legal document, yet the author is trying to squeeze every mile, he can out of it.
3.) He continues,
“For instance, there’s a scholar who said no Roman official would have ever waded through this ecclesiastical rubbish to get to a few relevant verses on legal apology. That intimidated me when I read that. But I began to see this is not ecclesiastical rubbish – it has legal relevance and it falls in place.”
This is the biggest objection to identifying Acts as an official legal document?What reason would we have for believing that a Roman official wouldn’t have seen this as “ecclesiastical rubbish” after all the author spent time investigating this idea. Would a Roman official take the time to investigate an investigation?
3.5) ” Mauck’s findings were initially dismissed by many as ridiculous. But his completed work has won endorsements from a variety of Christian leaders: Dr. Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church; David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus; and Dr. Donald A. Hagner, the George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. Noted Christian apologist Josh McDowell”
Well if Josh mcDowell thinks so it MUST be true! Who are they kidding? No endorsement from legal scholars? Why are “endorsements from a variety of Christian leaders” at all meaningful in determining whether Acts is a legal document of some kind?
spiker said
However, I did find, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I just ordered the book from Amazon. Thank you for pointing it out. The idea seems far-fetched to me, but still something I should know about.
I know nothing of ancient Roman law, but I cannot see Acts as any sort of legal brief. The essential element of a legal brief is that it asks for some sort of relief. Legal pleadings normally end with a conclusion – called a “prayer” – in which the pleader asks the court to enter the ruling that they want. Acts doesn’t ask for anything. The following is the conclusion of Justin Martyr’s first apology.
And if these things seem to you to be reasonable and true, honor them; but if they seem nonsensical, despise them as nonsense, and do not decree death against those who have done no wrong, as you would against enemies. For we forewarn you, that you shall not escape the coming judgment of God, if you continue in your injustice; and we ourselves will invite you to do that which is pleasing to God. And though from the letter of the greatest and most illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we could demand that you order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have made this appeal and explanation, not on the ground of Adrian’s decision, but because we know that what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian’s epistle, that you may know that we are speaking truly about this.
Justin Martyr’s Apology is closer to a legal brief than Acts.
The whole thing rests on IF. There’s a recent trend in apologetics to make arguments
assuming the data is well researched and valid.
I agree, but don’t think this is a recent argument. In 1846, Simon Greenleaf, the father of legal apologetics, claimed that “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it be otherwise.” That was probably an accurate statement of the law in 1846, but the ancient document rule he is talking about applies mainly to the authenticity of real estate deeds and similar documents. Seems to me that apologists have for a very long time made unwarranted assumptions about the reliability of ancient documents.
Lawyerskeptic said
I agree, but don’t think this is a recent argument. In 1846, Simon Greenleaf, the father of legal apologetics, claimed that “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it be otherwise.” That was probably an accurate statement of the law in 1846, but the ancient document rule he is talking about applies mainly to the authenticity of real estate deeds and similar documents. Seems to me that apologists have for a very long time made unwarranted assumptions about the reliability of ancient documents.
Thanks for The Justin Martyr reference.
Yes, a sort of analysis by wishful thinking. It’s like the whole gospel clearing house defense. That the disciples SOMEHOW examined every detail of every story being told and corrected them before a wrong story got too far and yet heretical accounts exist nonetheless.
Then there is the famous well the custom in the ancient world was for students to write under the name of an influential teacher
I finally finished watching the series. I was surprised it ended with a cliffhanger. Apparently there was supposed to be a second season. The last few episodes had very little to do with anything in the Bible, but I think it accurately portrayed one thing. Jerusalem was a fairly small town with a population of somewhere around 30,000. In a town that size, it would be practically impossible for the apostles walk the streets if the authorities were trying to kill them. In the series, the disciples mostly stayed hidden in a safe house after the death of Stephen. In the series, this was not a very long period of time, but how could the apostles have really stayed in Jerusalem if there been any serious persecution for a long time?
Are you sure about that 30,000 number for Jerusalem’s population? That seems incredibly low for the capital of a country. If it was that low I don’t see why the Romans would have bothered not once but twice to lay siege and destroy it.
Anyway, I don’t have any real knowledge about that. What I would say is that I think it would be very easy for several men to disappear in a city of 30,000. I grew up in a town in NC with a population in the single digit thousands. While I thought I had a lot of friends I think I could have easily walked the streets anonymously. I worked in a small department store in town and one thing I remember lamenting while working there in high school was how few people I knew who came in there! Plus, don’t you think the fame of the apostles might be exaggerated a bit in the early years of the Jesus movement?
Lawyerskeptic said
I finally finished watching the series. I was surprised it ended with a cliffhanger. Apparently there was supposed to be a second season. The last few episodes had very little to do with anything in the Bible, but I think it accurately portrayed one thing. Jerusalem was a fairly small town with a population of somewhere around 30,000. In a town that size, it would be practically impossible for the apostles walk the streets if the authorities were trying to kill them.
Here’s an intersting tidbit from Wikipedia
The population of Jerusalem in the time of ** you do not have permission to see this link **
During the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Arguing that the numbers given in historical sources were usually grossly exaggerated, Hillel Geva estimated from the archaeological evidence that the actual population of Jerusalem before its 70 CE destruction was at most 20,000.** you do not have permission to see this link **
However, a different Wikipedia article on The Demographic history of Jerusalem argues
Figures vary considerably as to the demographics of Palestine in the Christian era.** you do not have permission to see this link ** the population did not exceed 1 million.
If there isn’t enoughdata, would it be possible to get close to the right number
by looking at things like Roman troop strength. Generally, speaking Roman troop strength
would be look different for a population of 20,000 versus, say a million.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)