Joshua the Conqueror (1958)

Until recently there had been precious few films about Joshua, though for some reason when I wrote a previous post on the subject I forgot about this entry from the Living Bible Old Testament series. As I was researching for something else I'm writing at the moment I thought it was probably time I posted a few comments on it.

As always the series plays things pretty straight. In this case however that makes this little film more distinctive as it's the only film which portrays any other incident from the Book of Joshua aside from the victory over Jericho.

As you would expect the victory over Jericho is the film's high point, but it also manages to squeeze in other episodes such as the miraculous crossing of the River Jordan and Achan's sin and the resulting defeat to the army of Ai.

These films are always low budget, and I generally avoid criticising a film for that alone, however here the "miraclous" crossing of the Jordan scene really does lack any imagination. One minute we're shown a swelling, fast-flowing river, then there's a cut to Joshua, a description of the miracle and then just a close up of some feet running over some rocks. I accept that the film would not be able to match DeMille level special effects, but if you read DeMille's autobiography there's a bit in it where he discusses how in order to make the effect look right in his 1923 The Ten Commandments the entire cast and crew spent a frentic few minutes gathering bits of seaweed to scatter on the ground to make it look realistic before the angle of the sun change too much. Three's no such attention to detail here such that low budget and low creativity really make the moment laughable.

In contrast when the walls of Jericho come tumbling down there's at least some judicious cuts and thought that has gone into the process in order to make the equally low budget miracle at least look credible. It's still a little hard not to smile to oneself, but with so few versions of certain stories, where would we be without the Living Bible.

One thing that is noticeable about the fall of Jericho is that, aside from Rahab (dressed in red) and her family, we never see another of the people of Jericho. The film narrates their slaughter, but keeps them off screen. This has the effect of hiding the faces of the victims, silencing their voices and making their destruction less troubling. To it's credit the film isn't at pains to demonise them, but it does marginalise their voice and prevent viewers from empathising with them.

Finally, as I've already mentioned, this is the only film I know of which covers the incident where Achan steals some of the "devoted things" (7:1), angering God so much that he causes Israel to be defeated and then orders the Israelites stone/burn him to death. It's not hard to see why this incident might be excluded even for a team of filmmakers intent on trying adapting the Book of Joshua. Visualising it, however, only makes it seem all the harsher than reading it. I suppose though that this is the flip side of the criticism I levelled at the film not showing any dying Jericonians. Portraying Achan's brutal treatment does raise questions as to either the goodness of God's character, or the interpretation of how the vent has been recorded.

Anyway here's a scene guide for the film. All references are from the book of Joshua:

God’s Commission to Joshua (1:1-9)
Spies sent to Jericho meet Rahab (2:1-24)
Miraculous crossing of the Jordan (3:1-17; 4:10-18)
12 Stones set up at Gilgal (4:1-9,19-24)
Joshua’s Vision (5:13-15)
Processions around Jericho (6:1-14)
Fall of Jericho (6:15-25)
Achan’s Sin (7:1,21)
Defeat at Ai (7:2-5)
Achan’s death (7:6-26)
Joshua renews the covenant (8:30-35)
Joshua’s farewell speech (23:1-24:28)

Incidentally, I opened this by saying "until recently". The last few years have seen Joshua gaining higher profile than almost ever before, firstly with his escapades being covered in the History Channel's series The Bible and then with the character featuring in Exodus Gods and Kings.

Moses, Called by God (1958)

Having covered the gospels in 1951 and Acts in 1957, The Living Bible series turned to the Old Testament in 1958 with 14 episodes from Abraham to Elijah. The Moses story was given two episodes: Moses, Called by God which covered the events in Exodus up to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds; and Moses, Leader of God's People which covers Israel's wilderness years. Given that just the year before DeMille's second version of The Ten Commandments had been playing in cinemas it's interesting to see how the two productions compare. Because the latter films were part of a series, the intention behind their created was not a direct rebuttal, even if aspects of the film tries to put the record straight. That said, I'd argue that films which cover the same material as an immensely popular film very shortly after it, are perhaps those that are least influenced by it. It's too early for intentional homage, any copying would be too obvious to the casual viewer. Furthermore, any filmmaker visiting the material so soon after a major release would, in all probability, already have had their own strong ideas about how the story should be told. But a decade later, it would be likely that filmmakers would have been influenced before they started thinking through how they would shoot the story.

In this particular case, it was inevitable that the two productions would be very different. The Living Bible series typically adopted a slavish dependence on the Biblical text, whereas DeMille added in a huge amount of extra-biblical material. And then there's the budget. Whilst DeMille saves his special effects for mere a handful of scenes, everything about the latter two films suggest they were made for the smallest possible budget. There's no eerie greenish mist stealing away the Egyptians' first born, just a scene in Pharaoh's palace moments later. Heston's staff morphed effortlessly into a snake.; here there's just a cheap jump cut. Ironically, the best managed effect occurs during the parting of the Red Sea when the latter film throws aside biblical fidelity in favour of a DeMillean instant parting (although it's perhaps DeMille's 1923 version that is more the influence here than his 1956 film).All of that aside, this is one of the stronger entries in the Living Bible Series. The uncredited actor playing Moses has a few good moments and the film's pacing is very good. In particular, many films about Moses skip a plague or two, presumably to avoid monotony. But here they include all ten without things ever feeling dragged out. And there's something very refreshing in the way which this film sticks to the basic story without trying to puff up the relationship between Moses and Ramsees. In fact the Pharaoh's are never even named in this particular film.

Anyway, here's a run down of the scenes that the film covers:

Introduction - (Exodus 1:1-14)
Slaughter of the infants - (Ex 1:22)
Moses put into the river - (Ex 2:1-4)
Princess finds Moses - (Ex 2:5-6)
Miriam finds a wet nurse - (Ex 2:7-8)
Moses kills an Egyptian & flees - (Ex 2:11-15)
The Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Moses meets Aaron - (Ex 4:27-28)
Moses before Israel's leaders - (Ex 4:29-31)
Moses asks Ramsees - (Ex 5:1-3)
Bricks without straw - (Ex 5:4-21)
Ten Plagues - (Ex 7:14-11:10; 12:29-30)
Pharaoh releases the slaves - (Ex 12:31-37)
Pharaoh changes his mind - (Ex 14:5-8)
Parting of the sea - (Ex 14:10-31)
Song of Moses - (Ex 15:2)

A Few Notes
This is the only time, at least that I can think of, where Moses's adopted mother (here Pharaoh's daughter) both recognises and openly acknowledges that the baby that has just been pulled from the Nile is an Israelite. It's an interesting angle, particularly as it leads much more naturally to the conversation between her and Miriam which results in Moses's mother being brought in as a wet nurse.

It also means that the emphasis for Moses's slaying of the Egyptian is put back on him, rather than his struggle to some to terms with a new identity or anything like that. By this point the film is only 4 minutes in, which strongly contrasts with DeMille's film. Obviously that film was around 15 times as long as this, but even as a proportion of the overall run time, this film deals with that part of the story much quicker (in the 1956 film it takes around half of the film's runtime).

The other scene that particularly interested me was the one where Moses first appears before Pharaoh. Firstly, we're told it's a new Pharaoh, but he's played by the same actor. Presumably it was cheaper to make it this way, and a strong family resemblance is certainly not unusual. But it also gives the film a bit of extra meaning. It strengthens the link between these two Pharaohs (DeMille consciously tries to break the continuity by inserting an extra, more sympathetic Pharaoh in between the one who killed the babies and the one who was on the throne during the plagues. It also could be read as a symbol of Egyptian unity, or their facelessness to the Israelites. Perhaps I'm reading too much in.Secondly, both Aaron and Moses speak to Pharaoh. In the Bible Aaron is brought in as a mouthpiece for Moses, but it's unclear whether it's he or his brother that actually speak the words to Pharaoh - If Aaron was Moses's mouthpiece then it would not be surprising if words physically uttered by Aaron, were attributed to their source, Moses. Alternatively, it may just be that once Moses was inside the palace he found he didn't need his brother's help. From a cinematic point of view, it doesn't work so well if your leading man and hero figure seems to lack the courage even to speak so the majority of films have had Moses do the speaking. One notable exception here is the 1996 Moses which actually goes as far to give Moses a stutter first time we meet him. It's also the central theme of Straub and Hulliet's adaptation of Moses und Aron, but to go into that would be a major tangent.

Thirdly, and again siding with the Bible against the majority of Moses films, Moses and Aaron's initial request is for three days time off to worship in the desert. It's never really clear in the Bible how this ends up as a request for permanent freedom - the most likely explanation lies in differences between the four sources that lie behind Exodus. Likewise here, it's unclear at what point the request changes. But it appears that rather than trying to copy the Bible's confusion, this is mainly due to the way that the plagues are shown through narrated over montage.

Finally, the cries of the Egyptian people seem to have some bearing on Pharaoh's decision to release the Israelites. Again the voices of the ordinary Egyptians generally tend to go unheard in these films; Pharaoh makes his decisions either in isolation or only in the presence of his court. This is significant, because, the ordinary Egyptians probably also suffered greatly under their rulers. Looking at the Exodus story from their point of view is fairly disturbing. Having suffered under Pharaoh's lavish building programme they suffer terribly under the ten plagues culminating in the death of their children. Whilst a lot of them would have had roles in the Egyptian hierarchy, many of them would be entirely "innocent", in a sense, and the terrible suffering they faced at the hands of this loving God should trouble us and cause us to re-examine the passages in question. Whilst the film doesn't quite go this far, like the original text, it does at least allow the ordinary Egyptians a voice unlike other films which have bypassed such difficult questions by leaving them in the wings.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 9 and 10

OK, I did think I'd get this done by Friday, but time was not on my side and I only got halfway, so I decided to finish it and post it today and start discussion of Atti degli Apostoli later in the week. this is part of a series on the 10-part Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). The scene guide for these episodes is as follows:

Episode 9 - Witness Before a King
Intro - (Matt 5:10 cited)
Jerusalem riots against Paul - (Acts 22:18-24)
Paul avoids a flogging - (Acts 22:25-29)
Paul before the High Priest - (Acts 22:30-23:11)
Plot to Assassinate Paul - (Acts 23:12-24)
Paul before Felix - (Acts 24:1-27)
Paul, Festus and Agrippa - (Acts 25:13, 23-27; 26:9-30)
Summary - (Is 55:10-11)

Episode 10 - Triumphant
Paul in Rome - (Acts 28:16-22)
(Is 53:3-5 - quoted)
Paul Teaching in Rome - (Acts 28:23-31)
Extra-Biblical Episode
(Eph 6:10-17 - dictated)
(Col 3:1-3, 12-14 - read by Tychicus)
(Phil 3:7-14; 4:8 - dictated)
Extra-Biblical Episode
(2 Tim 1:8-12; 4:8 - recited by Paul in Prison)

Notes
There's a noticeable jump in the narrative between the end of episode 8 (Paul and Silas in Philippi - Acts 16) and the start of episode 9, where we find Paul caught in the middle of a riot in Jerusalem (Acts 22). This is made all the more obvious because the recap that starts most entries in the series recaps a story we've not yet been told. Sadly, it looks like some of the original episodes are missing. I say episodes because not only would you expect a series like this to have an even number of episodes, but also because up to this point the episodes have averaged 2 chapters per episode. Whilst Acts films often speed up towards the end it seems unlikely that one episode would cover 6 chapter in about 15 minutes. Alternatively, there could also be an episode or two missing between episodes 9 and 10 as there is another jump here. That said, the recap doesn't cover the episodes in Acts that are absent so it maybe just that they were left out.

Episode 9 covers the part of Acts where Paul is slapped whilst being disrespectful to the high priest. I tend to think of this as Paul being sarcastic, whereas in this version Paul seems genuinely surprised that he is addressing the high priest. Whilst this culture obviously didn't have the advantage of photography, and wasn't quite as obsessed with fame as we are, I would still have thought that Paul would have known who the high priest was, particularly if he was dressed accordingly. That said he could have been absent for so long from Jerusalem that he genuinely didn't know who the high priest was any more.

This episode contains the finest cut / edit of the whole series. Paul's journey from Caesarea is captured with a multiply overlaid dissolve. There are at least three aspects involved in it: the map, which the cut starts with; the face of Paul, also visible in the photo to the side; a group of horses pulling the chariot that Paul and some of his guard are situated in (not visible here; and, one of the wheels of the chariot spinning round. This piece of editing is a very efficient way of telling the story, and whilst overlaid maps are hardly startlingly original, here the various elements are woven together really well. It's a piece of film making well above the series par.

The final episode begins as Paul arrives in Rome, but the script has little interest in the end of Acts as much as moving onto an examination of Paul's letters. In fact the end of the book of Acts arrives less than 4 minutes into the episode.

Much of the rest of this episode consists of Paul dictating his letters, or them being read out by Paul's followers. The film does provide a few different ways of doing this. Paul's first piece of dictation is the end of Ephesians and we see him take his inspiration from the Roman soldier in front of him. The next section (from Colossians is read out by Tychicus in Colossae, as he delivers the letter on Paul's behalf. We then see Paul dictate part of Philippians to Aristarchus, and then an older Paul reciting the "fight the good fight" passage from the end of Timothy.

The use of scribes is one of a few nice historical touches in this episode. Tychicus is not the only bearer of Paul's letters, Philemon also makes a brief appearance, and is given three letters to deliver. The three might have been more significant had Tychicus seem to have been given Colossians. Some scholars suggest that Philemon was responsible not only for taking the letter which bears his name, but also the letter to the Colossians and the (lost?) letter to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16). I did notice one historical error (I'm sure there were plenty of others). Paul's scribes tend to write on a modern style table rather than on their laps as would have been far more likely.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 7 and 8

It's time for some more coverage of the Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). This will be the penultimate post about this ten part series, and I'll hopefully post the last one later this week before I go to see Roberto Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli on Sunday. Here is the scene guide for these episodes:

Episode 7 - Salvation and Christian Fellowship
Recap of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36, 41)
Judaisers arrive in Antioch (Acts 15:1-2)
Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-12)
Recap of Trip to Lystra (Acts 14:8-20)
James’s Speech (Acts 15:13-21)

Episode 8 - What Must I do to be Saved?
Paul and Timothy - (Acts 16:1-5, 2 Tim 1:5-6)
Troas and the Macedonian Man - (Acts 16:6-10)
Philippi and Lydia - (Acts 16:11-15; 26:12-18)
Paul and the Slave Girl - (Acts 16:16-19)
Paul and Silas in Prison - (Acts 16:20-34, Ps. 27:1-2)

Notes
Having gone off on a tangent in episode 6 we rejoin the main story in the run up to the Council of Jerusalem. As I noted in my post on portrayals of this council in film "the film appears to support aligning Gal 2:11-16 with events leading up to the council (Acts 15:1-2) rather than following it as the Galatian letter suggests". Initially, the council is a public affair, but halfway through proceedings move to a more private room enabling the script to also incorporate Gal 2:2.

In fact the whole of episode 6 takes a very positive approach to the whole council. The final decision is described as that of the majority rather than that of James as Acts describes. The letter that is sent out is then described as a "happy solution" and "wonderfully friendly and frank". Whilst this certainly captures the way the letter is written in Acts it skims over other issues that suggest the letter didn't solve all that Luke's account would have us believe.

Another interesting distinction is the way in which the commentary describes the Judaisers as rejecting salvation by faith. Being made in 1958 this series obviously pre-dates the new perspective on Paul, and whilst some people would still reject the work of Sanders et al. even they would have to concede that this idea is inferred rather than an inherent part of the text.

The other significant thing about the dating of this series relates to the summary at the end of this episode which notes that "religious and racial barriers were dealt a crushing blow... some day perhaps all barriers between men would topple under the irresistible power of the gospel and God's love". Obviously this pre-dates and, therefore, anticipates the civil rights movement of the following decade.

The eighth episode solely concerns Acts 16, beginning with Timothy joining Paul and Silas. It's noticeable that the scripts circumvents the dispute and separation of Paul from his previous travelling companion Barnabas that is found at the end of chapter 15. We are simply not told why Paul is now travelling with Silas rather than Barnabas. Timothy is introduced, and the narrator also mentions that it is often understood that Luke joined Paul at this point also - inferred from the narrator's switch from the third person to the first in the text. It's noticeable, however, that Luke is not shown on screen in this episode.

Following on from the recruitment of Timothy we witness Paul's vision of the Macedonian man. This is shot by focussing on Paul and his reaction rather than on the vision itself. Whilst this was no doubt a budgetary consideration it does capture the most important point about this vision, namely that it's significance lay in Paul's reaction to it. That said, we do hear the voice of the Macedonian man who, rather unimaginatively, repeats the words from Acts 16:9, "Come over to Macedonia and help us" three times. Lest the audience forgets what the man's message was, Paul repeats it for us again in explainning his vision to Silas.

The trope then move on to Philippi where they encounter Lydia and her friends, free the fortune telling girl, get thrown in prison, get freed by an earthquake and convert the jailer. But the story stops before it gets onto Paul citing his Roman citizenship to obtain a personal audience with the city's magistrates. These ares fairly dramatic episodes, but the producers wisely avoid letting the demonised girl ham it up. There is also a heavy emphasis on the strong performance of the jailer. His transformation from jaded captor to new convert is one of the series' finest pieces of acting, marred only by knowing the ending in advance and the script's lack of character development.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 5 and 6

Way back in November, I started reviewing the Acts of the Apostles episodes of The Living Bible (1957). It's a ten part series, but I'd only got as far as episode four. Now I'm gearing up to see Roberto Rossellini's Atti Degli Apostoli, so I'm trying to watch / re-watch some of Rossellini's films and finishing looking at this series, so here are some comments on episodes 5 and 6.

Episode 5 – God’s Care of His Own
The Church in Antioch (Acts 11:19-21)
Apostles send Barnabas to Anitoch (Acts 11:22-24)
Barnabas brings Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26)
Agabus prophecies famine (Acts 11:27-28)
Collection for Jerusalem (Acts 11:29-30)
Death of James (Acts 12:1-2)
Peter’s Escape from Prison (Acts 12:3-17)
Herod punishes the guards (Acts 12:18-19)
Herod dies (Acts 12:19-23)
(Romans 8:35, 37-39)

Episode 6 - Every Christian a Missionary
Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36, 41)
Crippled Beggar Healed (Acts 3:1-26)
Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:1-22)
Trial of Stephen (Acts 7:1-57)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
Ananias and Saul (Acts 9:10-16)
Paul preaches in Damascus (Acts 9:20-22)
Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48)
Barnabas collects Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26)
Church in Antioch (Acts 11:19-30)
Paul and Barnabas sent out (Acts 13:1-3)
Great Commission (Acts 1:8)

Notes
These two episodes contrast quite strongly. The first continues the general trajectory of the first four episodes - dramatising the book of Acts in roughly the order it appears. Episode 6, however, is something of an excursus: it focuses on the issue of mission as presented in the book of Acts as a means towards convincing it's audience that they too should be missionary minded. Hence this episode is a whistle stop tour of the various episodes in which the apostles evangelise boldly. It's actually surprising how much of the book of Acts is covered in this one 15 minute episode.

Episode 6 ends with the words of Jesus accompanied by a close up of his face. Interestingly, the actor playing Jesus is Nelson Leigh, who played Jesus in the earlier Life of Jesus episodes of The Living Bible. Leigh must have been available as well. He stars in this series as St. Paul, which is strangely distracting. No wonder Paul says that our bodies will be transformed to "be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). Perhaps the 5-6 year gap between the "Acts" and "Jesus" series finally rendered him too old to play Jesus: he would have been 52 at the time. That said HB Warner was the exact same age (52) when he played Jesus in The King of Kings.

Episode 5 ends with Paul and Barnabas going off to Jerusalem to deliver the gift from the church in Antioch, but despite the story relocating to Jerusalem, we never actually see Paul and Barnabas arrive. This lack of clarity reflects that of the biblical text whereby Paul and Barnabas are sent to deliver the gift to Jerusalem at the end of Acts 11, but are not heard of until the start of Acts 13 when they re-appear in Antioch. There are two major options. Either Saul and Barnabas's trip was a relatively short and low key affair, or that statement gives a brief advance headline which explains that which follows in more detail over the next few chapters.

It's a minor point, but Acts describes Herod's death as being in a public context, whereas the film shows this occurring in a private context. The death of Herod, which is described in fairly grisly terms, describes the event as being instantaneous, whereas the film merely narrates that Herod dies.

There are some additional points about these episodes in my post on Galatians vs Acts in Film.

Series Summary: UK Living Bible

Over the last 3 months I've been working my way through the UK DVD release of the Living Bible Series. With 12 episodes each of around 15 minutes there's over 3 hours worth of material and I've commented on each episode as I've been going along. I wanted to offer a few overall thoughts however, particularly as earlier reflection have focussed more on the individual scenes than the series as a whole.

The history of this series is a little complicated, and I'm grateful for the comments WitlessD made on one of the earlier previous posts on this subject which sum things up as well as anywhere I have found. The episodes included here are a selection from the original series which apparently consisted of 26 fifteen minute episodes. The films were originally released on 16mm film. Then in 1982 these were edited and shown on US TV as 12 half hour episodes. I'll be covering this release at some point in the future. The re-release merged episodes and used different titles and so on.

The UK DVD release returns to the original films and offers them in their original format. On the downside this does mean the quality is fairly poor. This is only to be expected though. The films were relatively rare and at no point does this claim to be a remastered or restored print. It does mean, however, that they come in their original format. They are the same length and have the same introductions and titles as that series. As the starts and ends of episodes are often narrated this is fairly significant.

What is strange, however, is that the episodes are in such an unusual order. The 12 episodes released out of the original 26 are as follows:

1. Birth of the Savior (2)
2. Childhood of Jesus (3)
3. Thirty Pieces of Silver (18)
4. Jesus and the Lepers (15)
5. First Disciples (5)
6. Jesus at Nazareth and Capernaum (7)
7. Woman at the Well (6)
8. Jesus Before the High Priest (21)
9. Betrayal in Gethsemane (20)
10. Trial Before Pilate (22)
11. The Lord's Ascension (26)
12. The Lord is Risen! (25)

The numbers in brackets represent the number of that episode in the original series. It's apparent, then, that this release has it's episodes in a muddle. In some places this is fairly insignificant (e.g. the order of episodes 6 and 7 where one is unique to John and the other based on the synoptics). However in places the discrepancy is so glaring it seems amazing that it has been missed. For example, Jesus's appearance before the high priest after is betrayal in Gethsemane, or his ascension after his resurrection.

Jesus is played by Nelson Leigh who starred in a number of other religious films. Leigh's performance has to be measured against the era in which this series was recorded. Hollywood was still avoiding showing the face of Jesus on the silver screen (out of due deference to the waning Hayes Code). In fact it would be ten years before a major film depicted Jesus - Nicholas Ray's King of Kings (1961). In the meantime they would release a string of films that would only portray Jesus's back or his hand. So such an up close depiction was ground breaking for its time.

Another issue which impinges on Leigh's performance is the overall quality of filmmaking. These are clearly low budget films and the writing is fairly unimaginative, making only a small amount of effort to understand the events and the characters it depicts. It's also a very literal rendering. Whilst it's happy to vary some of the dialogue (usually for brevity), it rarely offers incidents not recorded in scripture.

Given all that, then, Nelson Leigh's performance is reasonably impressive. Whilst he offers very little emotion, he does bring some warmth to the character. There's a fatherliness to his Jesus, not unlike HB Warner in DeMille's The King of Kings (1927). Leigh smiles less than DeMille's Jesus, and his performance lacks some of Warner's nuances, nevertheless his performance rings more truly. Sandwiched between the Second World War and the Cold War Leigh's Jesus is about right for the early 1950s.

Elsewhere the acting is more uneven. Some performances are decent enough; others are hilariously poor. The actors are not helped by having to cover their heads with what certainly appear to have been tea towels, nor does the overall lack of character development in the script give them much to work with. Even so, most of the performances either fall flat or are over acted.

In a funny way this reflects the more visual aspects of the film. Generally, the compositions are uninspired, and the camera work is fairly static. Occasionally however, something a bit out of the ordinary is tried, perhaps a special effect. When they do, however they feel forced and awkward, particularly by today's standards.

These criticism are perhaps a little harsh, particularly for an ultra low budget series, filmed just after the end of the war. As a visualisation of the gospel stories they are fairly solid even if they are a little stolid. The individual episodes work better than the film as a whole. Given that, at the time they were produced, few of these events had been re-created in talking film, then even a workmanlike portrayal such as this had a lot to offer. Without understanding that it would be easy to miss their importance, and in addition to this they have a certain charm. View an individual episode as a history piece and you'll probably get the most out of it. Anything else would be unfair.

Living Bible - Episodes 11 & 12 (UK version)

(This post is part of a continuing series on the UK release of The Living Bible -See all posts and citation method)

Episode 11 -The Lord's Ascension
Recap
Jesus meets two women - (Matt 28:8-10)
Road to Emmaus - (Luke 24:13-33)
Appearance to disciples - (John 20:19-23)
Doubting Thomas - (John 20:24-29)
Beach - (John 21:8-17)
Great commission - (Matt 28:16-20)
Ascension - (Acts 1:3-11)

Episode 12 - The Lord is Risen
Joseph asks for Jesus's body - (Mark 15:42-45)
Burial - (John 19:38-42, Mark 15:46-47))
Request to Seal the Tomb - (Matt 27:62-66)
Resurrection - (Matt 28:2-4)
Pharisees bribe the soldiers - (Matt 28:11-15)
Women Outside the tomb - (Mark 16:1-4)
Women Inside the tomb - (Mark 16:5-8)
Magdalene tells Peter and John - (John 20:2)
Peter and John at the tomb - (John 20:3-10)
Magdalene sees angels - (John 20:11-13)
Magdalene sees Jesus - (John 20:14-18)

Notes
These final two episodes reveal similar faults to previous entries, namely that they are the wrong way around. Hence we have the Ascension before the Resurrection. However, taken together, and in the correct order, they do provide the most thorough treatment of the events following Jesus's death committed to film. Even other long treatments of Jesus's life such as Jesus of Nazareth and the Living Christ Series offer only a selection of the events recorded in the gospels. The only other film that really comes close is The Miracle Maker.

One of the reasons that filmmakers generally pick and choose which events to include is that it is very hard to fit them all together. Indeed in a number of places there either seem to be contradictions or the only feasible harmonisation sounds completely implausible. For example, here we have Jesus and his followers making trips all over the place, in particular the trip to Galilee and back would take a considerable portion of the 40 days from Jesus's resurrection to his ascension.

The script is fairly clever though in the way it depicts the women at the tomb arriving. It has to gloss over a couple of apparent inconsistencies (such as precisely which women were at the tomb and when), but by having Mary the mother of James, Salome and Mary Magdalene go to the tomb first (Mark), they are able to have Mary Magdalene go and tell Peter and John (John) whilst the others go inside (Matt). It does overlook that fact that Matthew has Magdalene not Salome go inside, and that Luke mentions that Joanna witnessed these events, but generally it holds up rather well.

There is a great deal of attention paid to the seal that the Pharisees use to seal the tomb. Rather strangely they use a drip of wax and a press as if they were sealing a letter. I have no idea whether this is has any basis in fact, but it seemed rather odd in the way that it was displayed.

Finally, the portrayals of the Romans and the priests is problematic here. When Joseph approached Pilate to ask for Jesus's body he is in credibly reasonable about it, and is concerned that he might offend Joseph if it appears he is questioning his honesty in seeking for verification of Jesus's death. By contrast the story of the priests bribing the soldiers paints them in a very poor light and they continue to hound Pilate.

I'll be offering some reflections on this DVD set as a whole shortly.

Living Bible - Episodes 9 & 10 (UK version)

(This post is part of a continuing series on the UK release of The Living Bible -See all posts and citation method)

Episode 9 - Betrayal in Gethsemane
Judas leaves the last supper - (John 13:30)
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-42)
Jesus's Arrest - (Matt 26:47-56, John 18:1-11)
Judas Hangs himself - (Matt 27:1-10, 26:24)

Episode 10 - Trial Before Pilate
1st Trial before Pilate - (John 18:28-38)
Before Herod - (Luke 23:5-11)
2nd Trial before Pilate - (Matt 27:20-25; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:40; 19:4-16)
Jesus Mocked and Taken to be Crucified - (Mark 15:16-20)

Notes
As noted previously the episodes in this series are somewhat out of order, hence having just had episode 8 as Jesus Before the High Priest, the story now returns to the Garden of Gethsemane, before jumping forward to the events in front of Pilate and Herod.

The Gethsemane episode also features one of the more unusual examinations of Judas (pictured) that I can recall. The last supper episodes are not really included, hence there is little examination of his psyche prior to his betrayal that night (although episode 3 offers a good deal on Judas's motives in the run up to the Last Supper). However, once Jesus is arrested the story switches from looking at Jesus's anguish to that of Judas as he realises what he has done. Stranger still, we do not see Judas actually take his own life. The episode ends with Judas climbing a rocky hill, with only the voiceover to explain what he is going to do.

By including in Episode 10 two "trials" before Pilate, as well as Jesus being taken before Herod the film completes the most extensive sequence of trials in any film I can recall. Jesus is taken before Annas, the Sanhedrin at night, the Sanhedrin in the morning, Pilate, Herod, Pilate, Flogging (no direct comment), Pilate, mocking and then death. This sequence is even longer than in The Passion of the Christ. Interestingly though, whilst Jesus is taken away and returns with marks on his chest, there is no direct visual or audible reference to his flogging.

These episodes demonstrate the harmonising style of this series taken to its extreme. In addition to the lengthy trial sequence described above, some of the common events that the gospels narrate quite differently find themselves brought together. So the synoptics record Judas as identifying Jesus with a kiss. John has Jesus identify himself with the words "I am he" which cause the soldiers to fall down. Here, Judas kisses Jesus, but before the soldiers can arrest him, Jesus asks them what they have come for, and answers that he is the one they are looking for. We also get both Jesus's speech in the synoptics ("Day after day I sat in the temple teaching,") as well as that from John ("shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"). However, certain details are omitted entirely, such as the fleeing naked man of Mark 14:51-2.

Likewise, the final trial before Pilate contains elements exclusive to Matthew, Luke and John. The hand washing and the line "his blood be on us and our people" is solely from Matthew. The incident with Herod and Pilate's qualms about releasing Barabbas specifically are solely from Luke, and lines such as "Behold the man!", and the veiled threats to report Pilate to Caesar are from John.

Living Bible - Episodes 7 & 8 (UK version)

(This post is part of a continuing series on the UK release of The Living Bible - See all posts and citation method)

Episode 7 - Woman at the Well
John hands on to Jesus - (John 3:22-31)
Pharisees hear about Jesus - (John 4:1-3)
[extra-biblical episode]
Woman at the Well - (John 4:4-42)

Episode 8 - Jesus Before the High Priest
Jesus is taken away - (John 18:12-15a)
Trial before Annas - (John 18:19-24)
Peter's first denial - (John 18:15-17)
Testimonies against Jesus - (Mark 14:55-56)
Peter's second denial - (John 18:18, 25)
Trial before Caiaphas - (Mark 14:57-65)
Peter's third denial - (John 18:26-27)
Another Trial before Caiaphas - (Luke 22:66-23:1)
Quote from Isaiah - (Is 53:3-5)

Notes
Aside from some of the early silent films, the incident with the woman at the well is fairly rare for Jesus films. Obviously Saville's The Gospel of John had to include the incident, but otherwise the only major films to cover this incident are Rossellini's Il Messia and this series' contemporary The Living Christ Series. As with The Gospel of John the whole episode is included, although not quite word for word, hence not only is this incident included, but it's also given prominence.

This version of that story though is very keen to stress the woman's sin in her five marriages. Whilst that corresponds to the 20h century understanding of the situation, the woman should almost certainly be seen as a victim. Marriage was rarely by choice for women, and a displeased husband could get a divorce with relative ease. The repeated divorce cycle suggests perhaps that she was unable to have children. The fact that she was drawing her water in the noonday sun, rather than in the cool of the morning suggests she had also been rejected by society.

Episode 8 struggles to bring together the four gospel accounts of the trial before Caiaphas into a harmonious whole. The task is made harder by the degree of confusion in John as to who is High Priest. The title is given to both Annas and Caiaphas (I believe that the title was held for life, even after the person was no longer in office). Details are given of the hearing before Annas, but not before Caiaphas. The four accounts can be seen in parallel at Five Gospel Parallels.

But the film further complicates the hearing in front of Caiaphas, by trying to mesh Luke's marginally more divergent account with those of Matthew and Mark. Whilst in Mark and Matthew it appears to occur at night, Luke stresses that it happens by day, and the film picks up on how a night trial would have been unlawful. Luke also includes a little less detail overall, but adds Jesus saying "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer".

So the film decides to handle these as a main trial by night, and an official hearing in the morning to ratify the night council's decision. Whilst there are discrepancies between Luke and Matt/Mark, this seems a fairly poor way to solve them as both accounts contain enough common ground for it to be clear that these trials were one and the same.

The episode ends on the famous verses from Isaiah 53:3-5. I've previously noted that whilst the passage is quoted 7 times in the New Testament, the parts that support substitutionary atonement are curiously absent.

Living Bible - Episodes 5 & 6 (UK version)

(This post is part of a continuing series on the UK release of The Living Bible -See all posts)

After the unusual episode arrangement in parts 3 and 4, the series fits back into a more recognisable chronology for the next two parts covering the following episodes (citation method)

Episode 5 - First Disciples
Jesus in the Wilderness - (Mark 1:13)
Jesus and John's disciples - (John 1:29-39)
Call of Simon Peter - (John 1:40-42)
Jesus Calls Philip - (John 1:43-44)
Jesus Calls Nathanael - (John 1:45-51)

Episode 6 - Jesus at Nazareth and Capernaum
Jesus in Jerusalem - (John 2:23)
Jesus in Galilee - (Mark 1:14-15)
Jesus Heals a Nobleman's Son - (John 4:46-54)
Rejection at Nazareth - (Luke 4:16-30, Mark 6:4)
Jesus goes to Capernaum - (Matt 4:13-16)

Notes
The harmonising approach used by the makers of this film runs into some difficulty in these episodes. Firstly, Jesus's contact with John the Baptist is markedly different in the fourth gospel compared to the other three. In John, Jesus is not baptised by his cousin. The Baptist simply points him out to his own followers, with the result that some of them instantly leave John to follow this new, and by implication greater, leader. John's gospel also omits the temptation in the desert.

To overcome this, Episode 5 starts with Jesus leaving the desert after his temptation, and it is then that John makes the famous announcement "Look, the Lamb of God". It also omits verses 31-32 of chapter 1 where John the Baptist repeats the words heard in the Synoptics immediately after Jesus emerges from the water.

It should also be noted that in the US DVD release these incidents are handled even more curiously. Firstly, the baptism is included, but John's hair and beard are different. Then the "Behold the Lamb of God" scene is shown, but it is totally different, being filmed in a different location with more extensive dialogue, with John looking the same as in the baptism scene (all US episode 2). Finally, the third episode opens showing this incident again, only this time it is the same as the UK version being discussed here.

These episodes also come up against some of the ways the Synoptics and John differ. Both the numbers of trips Jesus makes to Jerusalem (three in John, just one in the others) and the way the disciples are called varies between the four gospels. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus first calls Peter and Andrew as they are by the Sea, and then soon after calls James and John. In the fourth gospel, John the Baptist encourages Andrew and an unnamed disciple to follow Jesus, and Andrew introduces Peter. Shortly after the numbers are brought up to five when Philip and Nathanael join.

Here the series prefers John over the Synoptics. James remains absent, although the unamed disciple is here identified as John. Episode 6 then starts in Jerusalem with a reference to Jesus having just cleared the temple. He then returns to Cana and Galilee. The script does well here to harmonise the different accounts although it does omit the wedding at Cana.

The Living Bible also departs from the majority of Jesus films over the healing of the official's son. Most films tend to depict this based on either Matt 8:5-13, or Luke 7:1-10, with the "official" also being a centurion. This ties in with the Rome vs the Jews subplot of many Jesus biopics. Here, however, the Johannine version of the story is prefered whereby the official is a nobleman, and it is his son that is critically ill. Many would, of course, hold that these are two different, albeit similar, events, and indeed this film may prove to take that path as well. That said, the similarities are striking, and the differences fairly minor, and could be explainned away by the differing concerns of the authors.

Gospel Comparison: Jesus Anointed by a Woman

Yesterday's post got me thinking about the story of the woman who anoints Jesus. I mentioned this incident last year when looking at From the Manger to the Cross. I've always found the varying accounts and the way they vary a bit confusing. There are numerous details in each telling and they all seem to vary significantly from each other. It's also strange because the story is one of the few that is in all four gospels, and because it is Luke's account that is the most different rather than John's as we would normally expect.

Anyway, yesterday I decided to tabulate all the incidents and see how they compare across the four gospels. The results are below, and you can view all four stories in parallel using the Synoptic Parallels page.

Detail	Matt 26:6-13	Mark 14:3-9	Luke 7:36-50	John 12:1-8
Before Passover		Y		Y
2 Days Before		Y
6 days Before				Y
At Bethany	Y	Y		Y
House of Simon	Y	Y	Y
(The Leper)	Y	Y
(The Pharisee)			Y
Lazarus present				Y
Martha serves				Y
A Woman	Y	Y	Y	Y
=Mary				Y
=Sinful			Y
Alabaster Jar	Y	Y
A pint				Y
Nard		Y		Y
Ointment	Y	Y	Y	Y
Broke jar		Y
Poured	Y	Y		Y
Tears			Y
Head	Y	Y
Feet			Y	Y
Wipes Feet			Y	Y
With Hair			Y	Y
Kissed Feet			Y
Smells Fills House				Y
Some objections..	Y	Y	Y	Y
Pharisees object			Y
Disciples object	Y
Judas objects	Y			Y
Why not sold	Y	Y		Y
Year's wages				Y
Judas a thief				Y
Kind of Woman			Y
Leave Her Alone	Y	Y		Y
Parable & Rebuke			Y
Beautiful Thing	Y	Y
Day of Burial	Y	Y		Y
Always Have Poor	Y	Y		Y
Wherever Story Told	Y	Y
Total	17	19	14	23

By doing this on a spreadsheet I was able to do a few comparisons. Firstly, the number of elements of the story that are common to all four gospels are startlingly few. Essentially, Jesus goes for a meal, a woman puts ointment on him and when some present object Jesus rebukes them. There are however a stack of differences. Where and when does this take place? Does the woman anoint his feet, his head or both? Who objects, and what do they object about? And what is Jesus's response.

Some of these details amalgamate quite nicely. Simon could have been a Pharisee who had contracted a skin disease at some point in his life, perhaps when he was much younger. The woman could be Mary of Bethany, who could have had a sinful life. Other details flat out contradict themselves, such as whether this took place two days before the Passover or six days before. Others could possibly co-exist, but would seem unlikely to do so. Perhaps the disciples objected because of the waste, AND Simon objected because of the woman's character.

There are a number of ways to respond to all these details. Firstly, one could decide it was all one incident. The details over timing are minimal and perhaps the woman, who was Mary of Bethany, anointed both his head and his feet with both ointment, and her tears, and wiped his feet wit her hair as well. There were two sets of objections to this behaviour, and Jesus dealt with both. This is the way the majority of harmonised Jesus films try to go, with the woman performing multiple anointings. The major problem with this is that none of the gospels describe the event in this way.

The other possibility is that there were two such events. One recorded in Matthew, Mark and John, and the other recorded in Luke. Certainly, of the 14 details mentioned by the third evangelist, the only one it shares with the other three accounts (other than those elements common to all four as listed above) is that it took place at the house of someone called Simon.

This version of events is how the film From the Manger to the Cross chooses to show things, with two different events. There are, however, additional problems with this. Firstly, it is difficult to know how likely this is. The action seems to have been fairly shocking in it's time. Would two such women have had such a similar response, given how few similar incidents of woman responding in dramatic ways to Jesus are recorded?

Secondly, the details of the other three accounts still don't match up all that well. Of almost 40 individual details, no single account contains more than 23 (John), and Matthew only contains 17. Furthermore, if we compare them we find that although they agree the incident took place at Bethany, and that the conflict and Jesus's reprimand concerned the potential sale of the ointment for the poor, there are only 9 details which they have in common. Comparing them in pairs, Matt/Mark share 15 details, Mark/John share 11, and Matt/John share just 10.

On the other hand there is still a good deal of conflict. Mark and John conflict over when this took place, John implies (at least) that this took place in Lazarus's house, whereas Matthew and Mark say it was Simon the Leper's house. Matthew and Mark only mention Jesus's head being anointed, whereas John only mentions the feet and so on. There is of course the possibility that there were three such events (Mark/Matt's, John's and Luke's), but that would just be getting ridiculous.

Thirdly, it seems reasonably clear that when Luke is writing he is familiar at least with Mark's gospel, and possibly Matthew's as well, yet he erases their story and brings in his own. If he was aware of their incident, and another one which he prefers, why not include both? Mark was happy to do that with the two feedings of multitudes (4000, and 5000 in Mark 6 & 8), as was Matthew, although perhaps the fact that Luke was not has some significance.

Fourthly, there is again the point that none of the gospels record there being two separate incidents. Such a theory is purely conjecture, based on trying to tie up the details of the four different accounts.


How does all this relate to the films, comments about From the Manger to the Cross not withstanding? Well firstly, what is remarkable is the number of films that add a new detail all of their own, namely that this woman is Mary Magdalene. In fact, as programmes such as The Secrets of Mary Magdalene have pointed out, it is the confusion between this story, and those of the unnamed adulteress of John 8, and Jesus's exorcism of Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), that led to Magdalene being labelled a repentant sinner.

Living Bible - Episodes 3 & 4 (UK version)

I'm currently working my way through the UK DVD release of The Living Bible. (My notes on part 1 are here along with a very useful comment from WitlessD on the series as a whole). One thing that puzzled me when I first came across the release in October is why the third episode is called "Thirty Pieces of Silver", as the title would seem to apply to Judas's betrayal towards the end of the story. As it turns our it does apply to that part of the story so I'm still mystified as to why that is. According to WitlessD's list it should be episode 18. Citations are in the usual manner.

Episode 3 - Thirty Pieces of Silver
Apocalyptic discourse - (Luke 21:5-19)
Passion prediction - (Mark 8:31-38)
Plot against Jesus - (Mark 14:1-2; John 11:45-53)
Anointing at Bethany - (John 12:1-8)
Judas agrees to Betray Jesus - (Mark 14:10-11)

Notes
The apocalyptic discourse is present, but, as with most portrayals of it, greatly abbreviated. However, here it particularly concentrates on the first part of Luke's discourse, notably the inclusion of the "governors and kings line from v12, which Matthew places much earlier (ch.10). This line is spoken several times by Anthony Hopkins in Peter and Paul, which draws attention to the possible manner in which Luke was using it here, namely to predict in part 1 of Luke-Acts the events that would happen in part 2 (and the possible reason why Theophilus was reading it).

After the Passion prediction, the story line reflects the first 11 verses of Mark, but expands it, by using the accounts from John, and even contradicts Mark in places. For example, the "Plot against Jesus" section occurs first in this sequence, but whereas Mark shows the Jewish leaders seeking to avoid arresting him during the Passover, the film has them choosing this time as he will be within their grasp in Jerusalem.

By contrast the final scene where Judas decides to betray Jesus is an amalgamation of Mark's description and John's motive. The internal dialogue of Judas here reveals his motive to be part disillusionment, but equally the chance to make up for wasting three years with Jesus by earning some money.

The "Anointing at Bethany" scene is one of those rare passages where Mark's original account bears almost as close a relation to John as the two other Synoptics despite a great deal of variation before all four accounts. The only common elements in all four stories other than Jesus's presence are the presence of a woman, that perfume was used and that there were some objections. The version here ignores Luke, the most different from the other three and uses a roughly equal number of details from each of the other three (although it included more vivid details from John than the other two).

The details of episode 4 – "Jesus and the Lepers" are as follows:

Episode 4 - Jesus and the Lepers
Leper Background - (Very loosely linked to Lev 14:1-57)
Jesus heals a single leper - (Mark 1:40-45)
Call down fire on Samaritans - (Luke 9:51-56, John 3:17)
Jesus heals 10 Lepers - (Luke 17:11-19)

Notes
Like Luke's gospel this episode includes both Jesus healing a single leper, and him healing 10 and like Luke's account, the only one who returns is a Samaritan. This ties in with Luke's theme of the gospel being received in all nations.

This episode also incorporates the rare (as far as Jesus films are concerned) incident where James and John offer to call down fire on a Samaritan town that refuses them. This incident, also from Luke, is often linked to James and John's nickname "the sons of thunder" and also comes straight after they have seen God perform miracles at their behest. They seem to have got carried away on this occasion. This story nicely offsets the pro-Samaritan slant of the later incident. However, in neither story do the Jews come out very well.

Living Bible - Episodes 1 & 2 (UK version)

Back in October, I mentioned the release of The Living Bible on DVD in the UK. I mentioned this series when I first started this blog. What is interesting that the US version and the UK version of these films are definitely different. The US version I have is 12 half hour episodes, whereas the UK version is twelve 15 minute episodes. Not only does this mean that each episodes handles it's bookends differently, but also some of that held between them is different. I'll post more on that as I go through the series, but for now I'm going to look at episodes 1 and 2 of the UK version. (This corresponds roughly to episode 1 of the US version).

Episode 1
[extra-biblical episodes - Intro]
Prophecy about Jesus - (Is 9:6)
Annunciation - (Luke 1-26-38)
Elizabeth and Mary - (Luke 1:24,39-44)
Magnificat - (Luke 1:46-49)
Joseph's Dream - (Matt 1:18-24)
Census - (Luke 2:1-5)
Birth of Jesus - (Luke 2:6-7)
Shepherds and the Angels - (Luke 2:8-16)
Prophecy about Jesus - (Is 9:6)

Episode 2
Circumcision of Jesus - (Luke 2:21-24)
Simeon and Anna - (Luke 2:25-40)
Wise Men and Herod - (Matt 2:1-8)
Wise Men and Jesus - (Matt 2:9-12)
Escape to Egypt - (Matt 2:13-15)
Slaughter of the Infants - (Matt 2:16-18)
Return to Nazareth - (Matt 2:19-23)
[extra-biblical episodes - Life in Nazareth]
The Boy Jesus - (Luke 2:41-52)

Notes
Firstly, a comparison with what I wrote about the US version of these episodes is interesting. Episode 1 of the UK version ends by repeating the initial prophecy of Isaiah from Is 9:6. Episode 2 then starts with a new intro. But there are other changes as well. There is (from memory / record) a shorter version of the scene with Zechariah and Elizabeth, although I'd have to double check to be sure. Similarly it doesn't appear that the US version includes the scenes from Nazareth of Jesus growing up, (but again it might just be that I didn't note them when I watched the US version). Later on in the series, though, I believe the differences are more significant.

Having watched a number of nativity films / scenes since I first commented on this series, I can't help but be impressed by it's economy and ability to contain nearly all of the biblical material. The conception and birth of John are absent, but otherwise pretty much all of the nativity data from Matthew and Luke is present. The scenes lack the dramatic impact of some of the other films, and the characterisations are much shallower, but nevertheless I appreciate the approach for what it is.

It really stood out for me watching this film this time how awkwardly Matthew explains Jesus's return from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). Matthew does occasionally explain something in a way that is fairly confusing, usually when he's trying to be too clever and communicate too many ideas at once (c.f. Matt 27:51-53). Here is both trying to explain Joseph's legitimate fear, but continue to portray him as a man lead by God, and gaining inspiration (like his biblical namesake) from his dreams. So Joseph gets two dreams in 5 verses - one telling him to return to Israel, and then another telling him to go to Galilee. But that second movement is also linked to Joseph's fear of Herod Archelaus. Perhaps I'm making something out of nothing, but I've a host of questions about these few verses.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 3 and 4

Yesterday I started looking at the Acts if the Apostles series made in 1958 by Broadman films, distributed recently as part of a Living Bible Collection. We now come to episodes 3 and 4 which I have already made some comments about in my Galatians vs. Acts post.

Acts: Episode 3 - Light From Heaven

1 Tim 1:15 cited
Stoning of Stephen - (Acts 7:54-8:1)
Saul Persecutes the church - (Acts 8:2-3)
Road to Damascus - (9:1-9*)
God speaks to Ananias - (Acts 9:10-16)
Paul is healed - (Acts 9:17-19)
1 Tim 1:15-17 cited

*This story is actually narrated three times in Acts, in chapter nine as part of the story, and in chapters 22 and 26 as narrated by Paul in two of his speeches. There are slight variations in these three tellings. In Acts 9 a light from heaven flashes around him, Paul falls to the ground and he hears a voice from heaven. The men with him hear the voice but cannot see anyone. Obviously, Paul later claims in his epistles that he did see Jesus. The account in Acts 22 is fairly similar. But in Acts 26, Paul and his men all fall to the ground and the words of Jesus are more extensive. The film combines these accounts, some of his followers drop to their knees, others remain standing, they cower from the light, such that they do not actually see Jesus, and no comment is made about what they actually hear. Finally Jesus's words reflect both those of chapters 9/22 and chapter 26.

Due to the production's low budget we don't see Jesus either. There is no shot from Paul's point of view unlike, say Paul the Emissary, we only see the light shining on him. In contrast, when Paul is healed by Ananias, we do experience Paul regaining his sight from his point of view. This shot is very reminiscent of the first shot of Jesus we experience in Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927).

It's also interesting that Paul's conversion is summed up at the end of the film as follows:

At long last he could know from personal experience the forgiveness of sin, and the meaning of salvation which comes through faith and an acceptance of Christ

This is very much pre- the new perspective of Paul ushered in by Sanders, and it has a very Reformed Church understanding of the differences between Judaism and Christianity.

Two, quick, final points. Firstly, the Stoning of Stephen is shown in greater detail here than in the previous episode. The series quite often re-cycles previous / extraneous material through flashbacks etc. Secondly, it is very noticeable here that "Jesus" speaks in King James version language, as opposed to the more every day language of the rest of the cast and the narrator.

Acts: Episode 4 - No Respecter of Persons

[Introduction]

Cornelius hears from God - (Acts 10:1-8)
Peter’s vision - (Acts 10:9-20)
Peter at the house of Cornelius - (Acts 10:21-48)
Peter Explains his Actions - (Acts 11:1-18)
Romans 10:12-13 cited

The introduction here paints a fairly broad context for this episode. "Gentiles who wanted to worship the true God of the Hebrew religion were tolerated in the synagogue, but hardly welcomed. A great gulf of pride and prejudice separated these gentile outsiders from the fellowship accorded to the Jewish race." (It's interesting given our society's obsession with "tolerance" how the word is played in it's original, and slightly negative light here. Technically, tolerance implies "putting up with". Interestingly the film mentions "pride and prejudice", a phrase that really became common currency after Jane Austen's novel where being described as "tolerable" is seen as an insult). I'm not sure how correct this opening quote really is, however.

An interesting comparison is made between Jonah and Peter on basis of their temporary residences in Joppa, and their wrestling with God's instructions. The film doesn't stress that both men are troubled by God's commands because they relate to Gentiles, but it's not hard for anyone who knows the two stories to make this extra jump.

The film is quite bold in its depiction of Peter's report back to the church in Acts 11. The narrator actually says that "some of the early church were guilty of racial prejudice" hence their attitude to the gentiles. This is quite a strong statement, but, it would be surprising if this was not amongst the motive of some of those that objected to gentiles entering the church. The church is the community of people who are being redeemed, and hence has always contained people with sinful attitudes in their lives.