How interesting to read that the BBC is to screen a new drama about the final week in the life of Jesus Christ which appears to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate. Producers of The Passion have portrayed the men in a sympathetic light because they believe they have been “very harshly judged” by history. A BBC spokesman said:”We are not seeking to subvert or rewrite the Gospel narrative – we are just retelling it to bring it alive for a contemporary audience.” Right, so you KNOW that that this is exactly what they are looking to do. However I’m looking forward to these bravehearts in the BBC pitching a drama about the life of Mohammad which implicates him in a paedophile and mass murdering scandal. I mean, it’s not JUST Christianity that the BBC wishes to “take a fresh look at” – is it?
EXONERATING JUDAS.
Bookmark the permalink.
This is beneath even you.
MattLondon | 12.03.08 – 12:50 pm |
Point taken.
I will start a little pool and await my comeuppance.
dave s | 12.03.08 – 1:18 pm |
To suggest we do not examine heresies is absurd.
This show won’t be examining any heresies. The writer’s discussion of how he came to the idea of his depiction of Judas vaguely resembles one. That’s what I was saying. And the extension of the Gnostic absolution of Judas to Pilate and Caiaphas can hardly be considered as examining heresies in any way.
I meant more that the major Churches don’t consider that stuff to be part of their dogma. I wasn’t saying that nobody in society every considers heretical ideas.
But the writer and producer made it very clear what they are doing, and not doing. Portraying Judas in a way that is sympathetic is not necessarily a theological approach. It just resembles one in this case. The thought processes and intentions as stated by the creators of this show pretty much have everything to do with Liberal attacks on Western culture.
I guess they could be seeking to entice people back into church on Sundays. Do you think that’s likely?
David Preiser
I do not quarrel with your general argument.I too doubt that the BBC is going to discuss ancient heresies and theologies.It would be interesting if they did but they won’t.As you say Pilate is in no way connected with any gnostic interpretation of the Gospels.To revise his actions and character serves no purpose at all.
I just find heresies interesting and could not resist a comment.
dave s,
Right, sorry for appearing defensive. Obviously that stuff interests me as well, which is why I smelled a rat when I read the writer’s comments in that article. Ended up talking at cross purposes with you.
I wonder if this show will invent any amusingly-named friends for Pilate, seeing how it’s all about that personal perspective and all. I’ll add that to my office pool just for fun.
For people’s information Pilate was venerated as a saint by the Ethiopian Church from the 6th century and his wife is venerated as a saint by the Coptic Church. Its all there on the non-BBC controlled Wikipedia.
gjm | 13.03.08 – 10:54 am |
Well, those guys went their own way long ago, didn’t they? Or, another way to look at it would be that the Catholic Church went its own way. I don’t expect that this new Passion will be related to that in any way.
Hillhunt: Always Support The Tiny Minority, Never Support The Overwhelming Majority
Sandra | 11.03.08 – 12:19 pm |
Come now. I hear sillybunt wanks highly in wome.
Remember Judas-gate?
How interesting to read that the BBC is to screen a new drama about the final week in the life of Jesus Christ which appears to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate.
Mr Orange brought us the terrifying news that the BBC was once again dancing on the decencies of the (Christian) God-fearing as part of its dhimmitude…
A BBC spokesman said:”We are not seeking to subvert or rewrite the Gospel narrative • we are just retelling it to bring it alive for a contemporary audience.” Right, so you KNOW that that this is exactly what they are looking to do.
Really?
Here’s James Walton, from, erm, the Telegraph, the very same newspaper whose account of the (then unseen) film inflamed Mr Orange so. Unlike Mr Orange or the holy-joe rentaquotes favoured by B-BBC, Walton had actually seen the BBC version:
In advance, some Christian groups have already objected to BBC1’s The Passion. After watching the first episode, I can only assume that this is part of their strange quest to prove that, when it comes to touchiness and knee-jerk outrage, their version of Christianity can still hold its own with any of the world’s religions.
And here’s the curate of St Bride’s in that revolutionary tract, the Financial Times:
The BBC’s The Passion is respectful, even faithful, to the scriptural universality of Jesus’s mission when it has him engage with the whores outside a Jerusalem brothel, tend to the outcast sick at the Pool of Siloam and defend the temple guards from his disciples’ violence when they come to take him in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Biased BBC: Ever Been Sold A Pup?
There seems to be a sub-plot in many of these comments that to try to understand the motives of e.g. Pilate, Caiaphas and Judas is to exonerate them. How so? “By their fruits you shall know them” as Jesus himself reportedly said. The end result was the same. Where’s the ‘exoneration’?
The main value in trying to dig down beneath the Hollywood ‘baddy’ stereotypes, where some people are simply ‘evil’ because Satan has entered into them or whatever is that it just isn’t true to life. It’s not credible, and as a result the self-righteous learn nothing from it, and nothing ever changes.
There is more than one reason for wanting to understand the motives of those who perpetrate destructive actions. No real peacemaking in this world is possible without it.
The idea that the bad stuff in this world is done by malicious people (not me) is dangerous. It was the Apostle Paul who lamented “I fail to do the good that I intend, and end up doing the evil that I didn’t intend. Who will save me from this body of death.” Tony Blair went into Iraq for the best of motives, so he says . . .
I’ve found the series superb so far, firmly grounded in what is known (from the Gospels and other sources) of the situation in Jerusalem at the time, and entirely credible. If I’d been Caiaphas, facing the situation he faced and with the information he’d been presented with, I’d probably have had to make the same decision – and that’s precisely the point. That’s what the world’s like.
It will be interesting to see how Pilate pans out. There’s a big gap between the sort of ‘exoneration’ the gospels give him and the brutal ruler known to other sources. I seem to recall he was recalled to Rome because his brutality threatened to provoke conflict rather than suppress it.
Dick Wolff | Homepage | 19.03.08 – 10:23 am |
So what is gained from this “understanding”? What have you learned so far, apart from that it’s wrong to judge people, and that only by understanding those we disagree with can we make peace with them?
I haven’t learned that it’s wrong to judge people – judgment is clearly necessary, and so is action against injustice. But the judgement has to be discriminating and truthful, and not based on the sort of stereotypes that have littered this discussion.
It also has to be humble enough to recognise the possibility of gross misunderstanding, so that wading in in ignorance (with no line of retreat) doesn’t simply make matters unnecessarily worse. As, for instance, in Iraq.
Beyond that it’s difficult to answer the question simply, because the attempt to understand inevitably humanises the thing down to individual people and small groups of people – it militates against generalising and stereotyping. So thousands of different specific things are ‘learnt’ and ‘gained’.
In the world of politics, of course, difficult decisions still have to be made – but our own recent history in Northern Ireland demonstrates that political leaders have to play roles. Anyone who saw Martin McGuinness sharing jokes with Ian Paisley Snr would realise that you can get on very well with your political enemies. When conflict happens, we don’t have to demonise the enemy. With just a little a bit of understanding, the shame of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib wouldn’t have happened.
On the other hand, you can understand the militant jihadist (of which I believe there are many factions) very well, be very alarmed at what you learn, and realise action has to be taken.