Gospel of Thomas on Film

Over at NT Weblog, Mark Goodacre has been writing quite a lot about the Gospel of Thomas recently. His latest post in the series is looking at clips from the 1987 Channel 4 documentary The Gnostics and in particular he discusses it's dramatisation of the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas. The most blatant observation is just how blond haired and blue-eyed this Jesus is. There are a couple of interesting points on that issue alone.

Firstly, this is quite the most Arian Jesus I have ever seen in film aside from Robert Elfstrom's portrayal in the Johnny Cash film The Gospel Road. When I saw this film back in 2006 I made a number of posts about it, one of which was a comparison between the gospels of Cash and Thomas. I should point out that I don't necessarily stand by everything I wrote in that post. I've learnt a fair bit about Thomas since then.

The other point on the blond Jesus of The Gnostics is that many commentators are at pains out that Thomas presents a significantly less Jewish Jesus than the canonical gospels and so it's interesting that both these films, linked as they are with Gospel of Thomas, present the most non-Jewish looking Jesus.

I may post more on these clips when I've had a chance to view them properly. Incidentally, I have been writing a series of posts about the Gnostic gospels for the rejesus blog including one on the Gospel of Thomas. I should point out that these articles have a word limit of 500, and are intended for an audience that has very little knowledge about Jesus and the gospels.

Thomas on the Road: A Comparison of the Gospels of Cash and Thomas

As I've been thinking about The Gospel Road over the last week (review, scene guide), I've begun to see certain parallels between it and the Gospel of Thomas - a Gnostic gospel which has come to prominence in recent years due to it sharing a fairly large volume of material with the canonical gospels.

The style of The Gospel Road - part documentary, part dramatic re-construction - is noticeably different from the majority of Jesus films, as well as from the majority of documentaries about Jesus, being somewhere in between the two. In the same way, the way this film uses scripture is also very different from those films. Other Jesus films primarily tend to take incidents from Jesus's life, and occasionally transfer the odd saying from its original context in one or more of the gospels into a fresh context in the film. However, although this film has Jesus's baptism early on, and ends with his entry into Jerusalem and his death there, the incidents and sayings that occur in between do not relate to the narrative order of any of the gospels. Furthermore, the film is comprised of a great deal more of the sayings material than most other Jesus films. As Jesus never speaks in the film these are all delivered by Cash, who fills the role of teacher and interpreter.

Just as this film does not fit the pattern of the majority of Jesus films, it also does not really fit the pattern of any of the canonical gospels. Mark, the earliest gospel, has fairly little teaching in it. Matthew takes Mark's work and arranges it around 5 (or 6) longer blocks of teaching. Luke similarly incorporates more teaching into Mark's work. However, he distributes the material more evenly. But in both cases the teaching is generally in longer sections, perhaps embedded in a story, or comes in the form of parables. Although John's gospel has relatively little action, its teaching is different again forming a number of longer discourses, most notably Jesus's farewell speech (Chs 13-17) which is almost 5 chapters! Most Jesus films tend to take one or more of these approaches.

The sayings material in this film is different again. It is mainly one or two verses without much in the way of context - aphorisms, particularly those snippets of Jesus' teaching which are most beloved by the (Christian) community that the film is primarily aimed at. Most of it is extracted from its original context. And it is reported by a well known, colourful, Christian character, with many sayings introduced by the words "Jesus said...".

Those who are familiar with the Gospel of Thomas will hopefully see the parallels between it and this film. I am aware that the date of this gospel and its relationship with the canonical gospels is highly contentious, with some scholars even suggesting that it is contemporary to the synoptics. I, however, share what I believe is the view of the slim-ish majority that Thomas is second or third century BCE, and dependent on the canonical gospels, as well as a few other Christian writings, rather than sharing sources with those gospels.

If that position is accepted then further parallels emerge. Firstly, both The Gospel Road and the Gospel of Thomas draw their sayings from all four gospels even though they take them out of their "original" context. Secondly, both works were created to reflect, and presumably appeal to, a specific branch of Christianity, and so selects the material which most reflects that community's particular views.

That said, some scholars, such as Ben Witherington III do not the Gospel of Thomas to actually fit into the literary category of "a gospel"

...the term gospel ("good news") is not just a Christian term, but rather one that was already in use in the Greco-Roman world before the canonical gospels were written...When early Christians picked up the term gospel, they had in mind the goods news of things Jesus had done, while also including some of his teachings.¹

It can of course be argued that if this is a Gnostic gospel then its good news would revolve around knowledge (what Jesus taught) rather than action (what Jesus did). Nevertheless that is beside the point. The Gospel of Thomas does not include a passion narrative. The Gospel Road does.

Finally, last month I mentioned Richard Walsh's book "Reading the Gospels in the Dark" which compares 5 Jesus films with the gospels they most closely represent. The second chapter compares Godspell to "Q" and The Gospel of Thomas. From memory, I seem to recall finding his comparisons between Godspell and "Q", more compelling that between Godspell and The Gospel of Thomas. It should be noted that Godspell also includes a depiction of the Passion. I wonder if Walsh has seen The Gospel Road? Since his main points of comparison regarding The Gospel of Thomas are based on the performances within Godspell I think he would find this and more in The Gospel Road. There is a fairly comprehensive review of Walsh's book at the Journal of Theology and Film.

1 - Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), p. 97

The Gospel Road - Scene Guide

Following up Tuesday's review of The Gospel Road here is the scene guide for the film. Gospel citations follow the usual format. I should add that in writing this I realise there are a few areas I'm not entirely confident in, so apologies if there is the odd mistake.

Prophecy about Jesus - (Is 9:2)
The boy Jesus grows in stature - (Luke 2:51-52)
John the Baptist - (Mark 1:4-11)
Temptation of Jesus - (Matt 4:1-4)
Rejection at Nazareth - (Luke 4:16-30)
Wedding at Cana - (John 2:1-11)
Blind Man healed at Bethsaida - (Mark 8:22-25)
Calling of the 12 - (Mark 3:14-19)
Peter's Confession of Christ - (Mark 8:27-30)
Jesus the Way, Truth and Life - (John 14:6)
The truth sets you free - (John 8:32)
Good Shepherd - (John 10:1-18)
The Two Greatest Commandments - (Matt 22:34-40)
The Greatest Love - John 15:12-13)
John the Baptist doubts Jesus - (Matt 11:1-5)
Jesus ponders John's death - (Matt 14:10, 13a)
Clearing of the Temple - (John 2:14-22)*
Seven Woes - (Matt 23:1-36)
The Fulfilment of the Law - (Matt 5:17-18)
Rest for the Weary - (Matt 11:28-30)
Woman caught in Adultery - (John 8:2-11)
Jesus and Nicodemus - (John 3:1-16)
Sermon on the Mount - (Matt 5-7)

Judging (Matt 7:1)
Ask and receive (Matt 7:7)
Go the extra mile (Matt 5:40-42)
Giving Alms (Matt 6:3-4)
Do not Worry (Matt 6:28-31)
Seek first the kingdom (Matt 6:32)
Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-12)
Lord's prayer (Matt 9:9-14)

Eating with Sinners - (Mark 2:15-17)
History of Mary Magdalene - (Luke 8:2)
Jesus and children - (Mark 10:14-15)
Jesus weeps - (John 11:35)
Passion prediction - (Mark 8:32)
Apocalyptic discourse - (Mark 13:4-8,13,21-22)
New commandment - (John 13:34-5)
Gospel preached to all people - (Matt 24:14)
Time of the Parousia - (Mark 13:31-32)
Kingdom not of this world - (John 18:36)
Triumphal Entry - (Luke 19:35-41)
Clearing of the Temple - (Mark 11:12-18)
Taxes to Caesar - (Mark 12:13-17)
Last Supper - (Mark 14:12-23)
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-40)
Trials - (Luke 22:54-23:25)
Mocking and Beating - (Mark 15:15-20)
Road to the Cross - (Luke 23:27)
Crucifixion - (Mark 15:22-26)
2 Thieves - (Luke 23:39-43)
Jesus's Death - (Mark 15:33-41)
Mary sees the risen Jesus - (John 20:11-18)
Appearance to disciples - (John 21:9-12)
Great Commission - (Matt 28:16-20)

A Few Notes
This is the only film that shows Jesus clearing the temple twice. This is based on a very conservative view of scripture which deduces that since John includes the incident that the start of his gospel, in contrast to the story's location at the end of the synoptic gospels, that the incident must have occurred twice. It is noticeable how different details are emphasised in both scenes to bolster the idea that there were originally two different incidents.

This is one of the strangest versions of the Sermon on the Mount. As noted in my review Cash and Elfstrom had such a low budget that when a scene called for a multitude they had Jesus on his own. This effect is used here. Jesus stands on various locations on a huge hill, but utterly alone. This technique does serve to emphasise the universality of Jesus's teaching, as he stands on top of the hill addressing the whole universe.

It is also strange because, unlike the majority of depictions of the Sermon on the Mount (not least the one in Matthew's Gospel), it does not start with the Beatitudes, but only introduces them part way through.

The depiction of the Lord's Prayer is also interesting concluding, as it does, the Sermon on the Mount. Here the camera moves to Cash who prays the prayer with the bible half open. However, the final stanza of the version of the Lord's prayer recited in churches is not actually found in the gospels, at least not in the majority of texts, only in a few of the later texts. So when Cash gets to this part of the prayer he very subtly closes his bible, marking the transition between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, which occurs throughout the film.

Finally, as you may have noted from the length of this scene guide for an 83 minute film, the film includes a great number of Jesus's individual sayings, many of which are just the famous bits plucked out of their "original", longer context. I will write more about this aspect later.

The Gospel Road (1973)

Johnny Cash's The Gospel Road: A Story of Jesus was recently re-released on DVD. Originally it was released in 1973, strangely one of three musicals based on the life of Christ that was released that same year - although this was the only one to create the feel of a documentary. Cash decided to produce the film a few years after his conversion to Christianity (largely omitted from the recent Cash bio-pic film Walk The Line) in late 1967 / early 1968.¹ He subsequently met Billy Graham in 1970 and they teamed up with director Robert Elfstrom who had filmed Cash's 1969 biopic Johnny Cash! The Man, His World, His Music (1969). Cash co-wrote the script along with Larry Murray, who went on to write for Cash's ABC Television shows.

The filming of the movie was relatively ad hoc. In 1973 Cash was interviewed by Country Music Magazine about the film, and recalled the way the film was made:

When we went to Israel we had two songs that we thought would probably be in the film...We hired an Israeli film crew to supplement our crew that we took over there, and we decided since we'd gone to all the expense to take a bunch of people to Israel that we were gonna shoot the moon, and we were gonna make as good a film and spend whatever it took for the month that we had to spend over there. And that's what we did. We hired extras. We didn't try to make a little big movie. We didn't try to make a Cecil B. DeMille film. We used as few extras as we could, and at the times when there should have been a multitude of people, we didn't use anybody. We used sound effects, to try to make it seem like there was a multitude of people. Well, when we came back and started editing the film and putting it together, we saw the need of a song to help tell the story here and there.

Furthermore, the decision to cast director Robert Elstrom as director was only made the day before filming². It was perhaps a rash decision. All the good work of authentically filming the documentary in the Holy Land, was undone by this ultra-blond Jesus, the lightest-haired Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Elfstrom's acting was weak too, and never really created the empathy that the role usually acquires.

That is not to say it is an entirely poor portrayal. Elfstrom's Jesus is as beatific as they come, and has clearly been very influential. The scenes of him playing with a group of children on the beach to the tune of Joe South's "Children" would set a standard that other smiley Jesus films, notably those made by more conservative Christians, would aspire to. In particular, the 1979 Jesus film, the Visual Bible's Matthew and the 1999 Jesus mini-series all appear to have been influenced (perhaps indirectly) by this film.

Actually the film both draws on older Jesus films as well as influencing later films, although many of these may well be coincidental. Since this film and Jesus Christ Superstar were made at the same time it must be an accident that both films are made in Israel and combine a mixture of historical and contemporary commentary. That said the scene of the woman caught in adultery must surely be influenced b DeMille's 1927 epic - in both films when Jesus writes on the ground he is writing the sins of those standing nearby. The final scene where Jesus is reconciled to his disciples on a beach is reminiscent of the ending of King of Kings (1961). In terms of possible influence, Mary Magdalene (June Carter Cash) is the only character in the film we hear speaking, when she retells her first meeting with Jesus. Another popular female singer, PJ Harvey, would reprise the role in Book of Life (1998) and similarly give an account of her conversion experience.

The role of Carter Cash in this movie is interesting, both given how she was viewed at the time and her role in Walk The Line. As Lesa Bellevie notes

I can understand to some degree why June Carter Cash would have wanted to play Mary Magdalene on film. Judged harshly for her divorces, perhaps she felt some kinship with the haunted Mary Magdalene whose sexuality had become the focus of her entire existence.

There are a number of interesting points in relation to this. Firstly, probably the majority of Jesus films have combined Mary Magdalene with the woman caught in adultery in John 8. By contrast, The Gospel Road shows that incident but uses a different actress, and when it comes to Magdalene's speech stresses the seven demons aspect. Secondly, in light of the Da Vinci Code, it is hard to resist looking whether a particular Jesus films suggest some form of romantic interest between Magdalene and Jesus, and in this case, the casting of the producer's wife in the role is somewhat suggestive. Finally, in Walk The Line she is cast as Johnny's salvation, and so it is interesting that this film is, to an extent, examining her salvation.

Like the other 1973 Jesus Musicals (Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell) the film has dated terribly, and much of it seems twee and bland today. Even in it's own day it was probably the safest of the three films. Godspell was a bold re-contextualisation which dared to show Jesus as a clown. Whilst Superstar was also set primarily in the past, it used Rock music rather than the "safer" country music of Cash.

That said the film has a number of strengths that are often overlooked. The use of natural light, and voiceless characters give the film a naturalistic cine-camera feel which feels less about a performance, or a DeMille-like spectacle, and more about genuine faith. Despite the fact that we generally do not hear the characters speak, we are drawn closer to them, and relate to them more freely. The movie has a "from the heart" feel which is generally lost in Jesus films. It serves as a testament to Christian faith from that era, no doubt due to it being Cash's labour of love.

The natural light effect is emphasised by the low camera angles and inclusion of the rising or setting sun in many scenes. Whilst the deference implied by such low camera work has been discussed elsewhere, these scenes also introduce a simplistic beauty into the film.

Another strength is the space that the movie creates. Given a tiny budget (from Cash's own pocket), the film uses only a few extras who are sparsely distributed around the various locations. In the quote above, Cash notes how at the times where there was a requirement for a multitude they went to the opposite extreme and had no-one present yet used the sounds of a multitude. This creates an eerie effect placing the viewer at the centre of events.

Such budgetary limitations were no doubt also part of the decision to depict the three trials of Jesus all at the same time. Herod, Pilate and Caiaphas stand in adjacent arches and Jesus moves from one to the other. This crystallises the often confusing sequence of events into a single moment. The three stand together, and Cash's narration cleverly draws out how each represents a particular grouping.

Perhaps the film's strongest moment is the crucifixion where the camera first encircles the dying Jesus, before cutting to a number of close ups which gradually pan out to reveal a modern location (see top picture). The focus of these scenes, like the film in general is very much on the "gospel" road of faith, rather than on historical reconstruction or exploration like the majority of other Jesus films. This has infuriated some, whilst inspired many others. One assumes these reactions are more in the past than the present. The years have dulled the impact of the film, and left itself something of a historical artefact - a monument to Johnny Cash's faith.

------

There's another review at Film Brain, plus my earlier comments on the film

1 - Dave Urbanski, "The Man Comes Around: The Spiritual Journey of Johnny Cash", p.67-73, Lake Mary, Florida, Relevant Books (2003)
2 - ibid p.113

The Gospel Road on DVD

I can't believe I've only just noticed this, but Johnny Cash's 1973 film The Gospel Road was released on DVD two weeks ago. I've actually never seen it. The VHS version went out of circulation a long time ago, and as it's supposedly more of a pseudo-documentary than a dramatic piece, I've never been sufficiently interested to pay what most sellers want for it. Clearly the success of Walk the Line has had an influence here, and the two films would make an interesting double feature as Cash found his faith very shortly after the events of that film.

In addition to narrating the film, Cash also co-wrote it with Larry Murray. Jesus was played by director Robert Elfstrom who played "the real Jesus as he might have been according to the Christianity Today of 1973. The film cuts between location footage of Jerusalem, re-enacted scenes from Jesus's life, often intercut with shots of today's polluted environement. Kinnard and Davies ("Divine Images") consider that this "technique was weakened by constant repetition throughout the film".

At the time Variety called it "an admirable musical documentary filmed in Israel, about the public life of Jesus Christ." Richard Corliss, in a Time article called "Jesus Christ Movie Star", says:

As Cash intones the words, "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," it's easy to imagine that God just must have a Southern accent. The pauper-budgeted simplicity and naivete of "Gospel Road" — its irrefutable good intentions — overwhelm the weirdness of a movie in which the director (blue-eyed, blond-haired Robert Elfstrom) plays Jesus and the star's wife is Mary Magdalene.

There's also a few interesting comments at The Magdalene Review, which discusses this film alongside Jesus Christ Superstar whihc was also 1973 (as was Godspell). Given that my birthday is coming up soon, I think I might have to add this to my birthday list.