I´m surprised that this is so rarely brought up. And yet it is such a salient feature, beginning with Mark´s gospel: Jesus appears to change his mind at different points. For instance, his reluctance to embrace a messianic reputation/role eventually gives way to an all-out balls-to-the-wall embrace, when he enters Jerusalem at Passover astride a donkey, consciously answering to Zachariah´s messianic ¨prediction¨. Even in John, he tells his brothers he won´t be joining them for the feast of tabernacles, only to secretly make his way down to the festival later on. Did he have second thoughts? Or when he came around to accepting the Canaanite woman as worthy of salvation, based on her pointed rebuttal? Such character changes are of course the hallmark of a great story-teller, and certainly Mark is one ( and even if he or the other gospel writers maintained Jesus knew all along what he was doing or was just a divine entity testing people, yadda yadda), is there possibly some memory of the historical Yeshua´s development, especially regarding his changing self-perception and his mission over the traditional 1-3 year ministry period? I know it´s all pure conjecture, but I would be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.
This is a great point–I do think many have looked for character development. The problem is that the four gospels are all distinct works with distinct themes, differing sources–and we’re not sure which of these stories is true–none are likely to be fully accurate, but some are certainly based on things that early Christians knew about him.
The gospels are all trying to tell the story of Jesus, but character development comes in a distant second to proclaiming him Messiah and (in Matthew and Luke) Son of God. So we can, if we like, create a narrative in our minds, see the man behind the myth–to me, the man is far more compelling and worthy of respect, and love. However, it’s hard enough to fully know your own friends and family members. To know someone who died two thousand years ago–even one we have as many stories about as we do Jesus–we could never be sure we’d gotten it right. And yet the man jumps out at you in the gospels (not in Paul–Paul never knew Jesus). You feel his presence, his warmth, his wit, and his pain.
As long as we recognize our understanding of him will always be incomplete, and a reflection of our own personalities (Everyone has his or her own Jesus), it’s a worthy effort to make. Though some refuse to do so–because they want to believe he was God–or because they want to believe he was nothing.
Whatever he was, he was human, he had a personality, he had hopes and fears and doubts and failings–and character. Which developed. I agree, you see him changing. How couldn’t he? The experience of leading a group of men and women who increasingly believe he’s The Chosen One–that would transform anyone. He had, in a limited sense, power over them, and over the people who listened to him. And power can corrupt–but it can also reveal. I think what power revealed about Jesus was largely good. Not entirely. And the way he died was unusual–cult leaders don’t normally die instead of their followers. If he had such power over them, he could have taken some with him. Why didn’t he? Who was this man? This man everybody knows, and nobody knows.
Thanks for the well thought-out reply, Godspell. I enjoy reading your posts. I´ve been partly motivated by personal curiosity about the historical Jesus, the man behind all these glorified, mythologized accounts, and s slowly developing story (that may end up a screenplay or graphic novel) about what might´ve led up to the ministry period. I want to stay true to the historical context – so a lot of research is going into this piece (which led to my blog membership here). Of course, the gospel accounts contain some intriguing moments that do suggest a lot of character development, though these may reflect the changes the movement itself underwent in the decades following Jesus´ death. That said, there is no doubt that at various points, he did have to adapt and re-evaluate his worldview and strategies, even during the ministry period; especially when he had to come to terms with the loss of John the Baptist, who he may have, along with many others, considered the awaited messiah. The Essene connection there especially intrigues me, and the differing concepts of messiah; some of the DS scrolls prophesying two messiahs.
I think there was a certain fluidity to messianic expectations–as there is today. People want to believe somebody’s going to save them, and when one fails, they look for another. And adjust their expectations accordingly.
I also think some Jews probably were a bit ambiguous about whether they wanted the Messiah to come, since you know, that would mean trouble. This would particularly apply to those who had comfortable settled lives. In theory, yes. In practice–eh. And this is also very much how we are today.
But Jesus was mainly speaking for the people who had very little to lose by a social upheaval. And who were unlikely to nitpick over whether he was from Judea, or how he died. Slaves were the most likely people to be crucified in Roman society–to them, a crucified poor man becoming the savior was not so strange.
Whatever he was, he was human, he had a personality, he had hopes and fears and doubts and failings–and character.
None of which we have any access to whatsoever. In order to create the Jesus of faith, the Jesus of history has been all but obscured. We have a sketch of a career and a general idea of his apocalyptic viewpoint. Any character development we detect is a projection. The gospel writers are reporting variations on a literary/theological mythos that had been developing from forty to sixty years. Paul, though writing earlier, is even less help because he has virtually zero interest in the pre-Easter Jesus.
Albert Schweitzer made this point a hundred years ago.
Of course none of this diminishes the curiosity we feel about this man, who he might have been. And we are free to speculate to our heart’s desire. So write that novel and produce that movie. More power to you. But we can no more see the face of the historical Jesus than we can see the back of Mona Lisa’s head.
Maybe it had to be that way. Perhaps the only way the Christian tradition could thrive was by turning it’s founder into a projection of its concerns and fears and desires. We can still do that but let’s do it consciously through our arts and imagination.
You know, that’s fairly well written, but it’s also pretty trite. I read a really good biography of Cleopatra a few years back, written by Stacy Schiff. We actually have, in some respects, less information about her than we do about Jesus–and it’s almost entirely from her enemies, and almost none of it firsthand–and this is the most famous woman of ancient times, maybe all time. We have zero writings from her. This is the reality of studying ancient history–we have no writings from her nemesis Octavian either, though he wrote his memoirs–and they were lost. So we can’t speculate about who he was as a person? We are going to do that, because we have to.
Schiff did a brilliant job digging into the record, and coming up with some persuasive speculations about Cleopatra’s motivations, her aspirations, her romantic feelings (or lack thereof) for Caesar and Antony–her character. It’s good history. And people who read it will come away with a better understanding of the past.
And we do the same thing with Jesus.
Why not?
He’s more influential than any of them. Astounding. But true.
You say it’s okay to speculate, but you keep acting like it’s not–if you don’t like what people come up with. Of course we’re speculating, as are you, but the point is to do informed speculation. And to learn from the speculations of others. I am not at all where I was on this subject a few years ago. When I still believed he was just a man.
As to you saying the Jesus of Faith gets in the way–is there an echo in here? I’ve said the same exact thing. Repeatedly. Nobody on this thread said otherwise. Who are you arguing with?
Your problem isn’t with speculation. Your problem with speculation that doesn’t in some way try to undercut his influence. And his influence, believe it or not, isn’t based entirely on religious faith. Lots of people have never believed Jesus was a supernatural being–and still learned from him. And if in some cases they were learning from ideas indirectly inspired by him–or ideas he got from other sources that we don’t have now–or that are far less accessible–so what? That’s true of every other figure from the past who has influenced the present.
Can you accept that as long as people ask “How am I supposed to live in this world?” he’s always going to matter?
It’s true, whether you admit it or not. That’s not an article of faith. That’s a matter of fact.
Also, people will never stop speculating about the Mona Lisa either. Who is she? Why is she smiling? I’m not sure anyone particularly cares about the back of her head. But whatever turns you on, man. 😉
meohanian what I’ve always wanted to see was somebody film the gospel of Mark exactly as written, excluding narrative details from the other gospels. It would instantly become the most controversial Jesus movie ever made.
Imagine the reaction when Jesus tells his disciples he teaches in parables in order to conceal his true message from the masses? Or when his family, including his mother, come to restrain him because they think he’s crazy! And then at the end have the resurrection result in fear and confusion rather than piety and hope. When the pious go apesh*t you could defend yourself by pointing out you’re being totally faithful to the gospel. Which would be true!
Of course the main reason to make the film is not to confuse the rubes and remind them how little they know about their own Bible. (That would merely be the fun part!) The main reason is to try to capture at least some of Mark’s weird brilliance in the visual medium.
Yeah, imagine how people would react to see what happens in a book millions of them practically know by heart!
How often does Hollywood ever adapt any book faithfully? Pasolini (not a Hollywood guy) did come close with his take on Matthew’s gospel, though the costumes got a bit weird.
Pasolini was an atheist, as well as a Marxist, and of course gay. And his comments on why he made his film the way he did are rather interesting.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus still has the power to captivate all kinds of people, for all kinds of reasons, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Not that I should need to tell you this, since you spend so much time gabbing about him online. (Possibly more than I do–this is the only place I go to discuss early Christianity.)
What about Socrates’ character arc in Plato’s dialogues? Any development there? Not that I can see. He’s always the smartest guy in the room. He’s always hating on Athenian Democracy, and the hoi polloi in general. He’s always condescending and dismissive of women, who he considers inferior beings. He’s always using a lot of leading questions to make his points, that somehow none of the other participants in the dialogue ever catch wise to, even though they all have seen him do this before. And of course he never acknowledges any debt to the great Greek philosophers that came before him (referred to as ‘Pre-Socratics’), who most scholars believe he was influenced by–while often mocking and belittling them in public.
But of course, Plato wrote all his dialogues years later. He wasn’t taking shorthand. It’s widely believed that to some extent he’s putting his own ideas in the mouth of Socrates (we can never be sure how much). And he never does tell us whether Socrates could read and write. My guess is maybe, like Jesus, a lot better at the former than the latter. The fact is, Plato’s dialogues, while based on firsthand knowledge of Socrates, are not entirely reliable sources–and we have damned little else to go on.
Can one infer certain developments in the character of Socrates from what we have? I think so. But that would be wrong. Right, Stephen? 😉
Calm down godspell, you’re going to have a stroke. I know devout believers who are less prone to take offense than you. And I think if Jesus can survive KING OF KINGS or THE ROBE or torture porn like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, he doesn’t have to worry too much about “my” movie. Actually the whole point is to present Mark’s view as faithfully (pardon the pun) as possible.
I’ve tried to think through the production aspect. One of Mark’s chief characteristics is his brevity and pace so you wouldn’t want to turn the film into a three hour epic. And I think Mark would better suited to a phantasmagoria than to neorealism. Perhaps a soupçon of German expressionism might not be inappropriate. Of course the key to success centers on who you pick to play the character of Jesus. It doesn’t matter how good the movie might otherwise be if Jesus sucks, or is merely mediocre. You have to nail that or fail. The easy way is to go after the classic mainstream traditional white bread hippy in a bathrobe. It would be hard to top Robert Powell for that! But the goal here should be an offbeat portrayal that is not off putting.
ps Polls consistently show how little American believers know about the Bible. According to a Pew poll released just this month 51% of those polled knew Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount! This shouldn’t be a surprise. Few Americans read anymore and the Bible is a hard read to begin with. Polls also show that skeptics and atheists tend to know more about the Bible than believers. This too shouldn’t be a surprise. Most unbelievers began as believers and most testify to the fact that it was actually reading and learning about the Bible that sped them on their way out the door.
Stephen, has anyone ever told you you’re like an homage to every cliche people resort to when they’re losing an argument on the internet? One snarky exclamation point is not a recognized warning sign for a cerebrovascular event. My pulse was quite steady, thanks for the concern. 🙂
And I said ‘millions’–that’s a fair enough figure to cite, if vague. The Pew poll said Jews and Mormons do about as well, so being a bit disingenuous there, no? The fact is, people with something to prove tend to show more interest in getting into the weeds of any subject. And Christians in general are a much more mixed bag in terms of interests–as majorities tend to be.
I would love to see an accurate film version of any gospel, that shows us a human Jesus–and in fact I said so on the main blog–go down a short ways on the page.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But does this mean you admit Mark does in fact show us the real Jesus to some extent?
Whoopsy.
😀
Stephen, has anyone ever told you you’re like an homage to every cliche people resort to when they’re losing an argument on the internet?
No, no one ever has. But which argument is it that we having that I’m losing?
But does this mean you admit Mark does in fact show us the real Jesus to some extent?
You’re missing my point. I want to see a film that tries to capture Mark’s Jesus. That translates Mark (as much as that can be done of course) into a visual medium. Historical critical issues take a back seat here. (Not after a documentary.) This is about story, plot, imagery, atmosphere, etc.
That last bring up another point. What music do you use? Celestial choirs and 1000 member orchestras like in the Hollywood sword & sandal epics? Nah. I’m thinking minimalist flute and percussion. Scorsese was on the right track with the ethnic music but perhaps a but overdone. Silence would be our friend here.
Silence is always your friend godspell. BWAHAHAHAHA…
I got your point just fine. (It wasn’t subtle). You missed mine, as usual. And I have, as mentioned, thought the same thing in past. Lots of people have. Not original.
Now the MUSIC thing is interesting, but who says there has to be any music all? Maybe some incidental music in the background, here and there. Jewish religious music of the general time period, which would take some research, but there is information out there.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Silence can be most eloquent. See, I know my friends. You, not so much. But first you’d have to know yourself. I won’t hold my breath. 😉
Now the MUSIC thing is interesting, but who says there has to be any music all?
It’s my hypothetical movie so I say. I like music. And the music not only adds power to the visual image it serves to highlight the silence (and vice versa of course). Toru Takemitsu’s traditional ethnic Japanese compositions for Akira Kurosawa might serve as a template. (Of course his stuff using western instrumentation is pretty killer too.)
Well, aren’t we the name-dropper! If you want to start a Kurosawa thread, feel free–I’ve seen most of his films in theaters over the past three decades. And if there was ever anyone who didn’t adapt source material literally and directly–I mean, you’ve seen Throne of Blood. He did a whole movie based on dreams he had. (How would you know if someone was adapting a dream faithfully?)
I’d say the Italian neorealists offer more relevant stylistic cues here. Rossellini’s The Flowers of St. Francis is a good example–almost a model for how Mark’s Gospel could be filmed, episodically, enigmatically. But also Paisan, and Rome: Open City. De Sica would also be a good model. Lots of non-actors, little or no music, very simple basic storytelling, full of quiet compassion for the humble–and anger towards those who oppress them. You can find this in Kurosawa, but being of the samurai class, he saw things from a loftier social perspective.
There are Middle Eastern filmmakers, you know. And actors.
godspell, I’m pleased that my piquant little fantasy of a movie based on Marks’s gospel has so captured your fancy.
By “faithful” I merely mean that it restricts itself to those narrative episodes and literary themes exclusive to Mark. For me engaging directly with Mark would be the entire point. Mark is not “full of quiet compassion for the humble”, but exorcisms and portents, secrets and signs, tempests, a transfiguration and an apocalypse. Any slavish stylistic adherence to any form of realism would be inadequate because Mark is a not a writer of realism. Mark’s gospel is a phantasmagoria. Form should follow content. (Actually with sufficient whimsy you could turn gMark into a full blown horror movie. One of Mark’s central themes of course is fear.)
ps You misunderstand my reference to Kurosawa. I was only talking about his use of Takemitsu’s music. More punctuation than grammar. An approach well worth emulating.
No, I got it. But wouldn’t people be asking “Why are they playing minimalist Japanese music in a film set in the First Century AD in Palestine?”
Again, this narrative approach you think is so novel has already been used in The Flowers of St. Francis. Watch it sometime.
I was a serious serious film buff–in New York. I lived in revival houses, for years. You ain’t telling me a damn thing I don’t know. And honestly, if you want to talk film adaptations, start a thread. Only one Jesus film I really care about. Gee, can you guess which one? (Not very literal.) 😉
No, I got it. But wouldn’t people be asking “Why are they playing minimalist Japanese music in a film set in the First Century AD in Palestine?”
Not if they actually read my post. You don’t got it. Hint: look up the word “template”.
I was a serious serious film buff–in New York. I lived in revival houses, for years. You ain’t telling me a damn thing I don’t know.
Yes we know that you are a cut above the rest of us with a level of perception not granted to the common folk. How do we know? Because you take every opportunity to tell us.
You’re doing most of the posturing here, Stephen.
And posting way off-topic, I might add.
As the saying goes “Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.” You haven’t made a single coherent point, because nobody can hear the music in your head but you. I know the music Kurosawa used, at least as well as you, and IMHO, that style wouldn’t work at all well for a film based on Mark’s Gospel. You’d either need something to invoke the emotions of the big scenes–or you’d need to get out of the way of the story, and keep music on the down-low.
A film based on Mark’s gospel (but not projecting modern Christian views–or any other modern views) is an interesting enough idea, that many others have had before you, myself included. But you’ve done very little to make anyone see your vision for it. And talking about music is counterproductive, since it’s impossible to describe music very well with words on a screen. (And you’re not all that good a writer to begin with.)
If you ever get the film produced, I hope you won’t forget to send me a ticket for the red carpet premiere.
I think we’re done here. Abandon thread.
🙂
Aside from their cloying piety, hammy acting, and hopeless miscasting, one thing that has always annoyed me about Jesus movies is inevitably at some point they can’t resist setting up a scene derived from some famous Western religious painting. I don’t know why I have this response particularly but I do.
There is one form of painting that might be fruitful to explore in a film, and that’s the Eastern Orthodox Icon. Now not like Tarkovsky did in Andrei Rublev; I’m talking about applying their qualities, their luminosity and hallucinatory vividness, to another medium. Anything to still the dead hand of realism.
I have a print of a 15th century Cretan Icon of the Transfiguration in my office. I saw the original in a nice show at the Smithsonian National Gallery and was struck by it’s beauty. And in that timeless all-time of the Icons it depicts both the ascent and the descent of the mountain as well as the moment of transfiguration at the summit. Here the Transfiguration is not an event in a specific time and place but an image to lead the consciousness beyond it. Could you do this in a movie? Maybe not but it would be worth it to try. And where better to make the attempt than in a movie about Jesus?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert