Scene Comparion - Pentecost

My small group is looking at Acts at the moment and last week there was a bit of a mix up over who was doing what and so seeing as we were at my house I suggested watching the passage fr the day (Acts 2) in some different film versions.

Whilst there are quite a few film versions of a selection of stories from Acts a good number of them are Paul biopics and so are only really interested in Acts from the stoning of Stephen onwards. So films such as Paul the Emissary, Damascus, The Bible Collection's Paul and even, surprisingly, Peter and Paul all exclude this incident.There are however a number of films that do cover these events and here are some comments on a few of them.

Living Bible: Acts of the Apostles (1957)

If ever you want a stiff, very literal rendering of a story played out by men wearing tea towels, then  The Living Bible comes up trumps every time. The budgetary limitations area always obvious so for the start of Acts the Ascension is narrated and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the tongues of fire all occur off screen. The rest of the scene is dull in the extreme.

Power of the Resurrection (1958)
Peter is stuck in jail with a young Christian who is scared and so he tells the boy how he met Jesus and gained the courage he now has. So the retelling of Peter's life climaxes with Pentecost. It's strange, then, that there's no tongues of fire scene here either. We do see Annas and Caiaphas in the crowd as Peter preaches. The most interesting feature of this film, for me, is that both the younger and the older Peter are played by Richard Kiley, who would play another disciple turned writer Matthew in the Visual Bible's Matthew. What's most interesting is comparing how the film makers thought Kiley would look like as an old man, and how he actually does look. Had I not seen the latter production, I would have thought it a reasonably credible piece of make-up, but as things stand it looks more than a little naïve.

Atti degli Apostoli (1969 - pictured)
Overall I think Rossellini's film is my favourite of those that deal with Acts, partly because while it is still an obviously low budget piece it makes that into a virtue, rather than a constantly distracting flaw, but then I'm a big fan of Rossellini in general.

Again there are no tongues of fire, but the sky does momentarily go dark red before the disciples burst out into the public square. It's a wonderful moment, partly because it's been preceeded by a long and rather dry exposition of the story's cultural and historical context (from one Roman to another), which both give a better feel for that context but also because the disciples sudden arrival on the scene forms a striking contrast with the more stoic Romans. Furthermore there is something ambiguous about the moment. One the one hand it evokes Joel's prophecy about the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood, but on the other the disciples' absence from the moment distances them from it, as if to break the causal link. 

My favourite line in this story has always been Peter's "they're not drunk it's only nine o'clock in the morning: I remember laughing about that one as a ten year old at church. The majority of these films deliver it in a very po-faced and forced fashion. Here, Peter dismissively chucks it out over his shoulder as he marches through the crowd. It's reminiscent of Pasolini's Jesus making terse theological or political statements over his shoulder as the disciples struggle to keep up.

And then there's the climax, as Peter, the disciples and a bunch of keen to be new converts all rush in a state of high excitement to a watering hole outside the city. Are they ecstatic or just mad? Rossellini leaves it up to the viewer to interpret it. I imagine both interpretations happened at the time so it's nice to see this captured in the film and both sides thrown up for the viewer to pick over.

Incidentally, did I ever mention that this film is available to view (albeit without subtitles) here?

A.D. (1985)
Just as the series intercuts the story of the early church with tales of the Romans here we get the first Pentecost intercut with the Romans leading an execution. And just as the series often brings both stories together at certain critical points, so it turns out that the man who is due to be executed and is subsequently rescued is a friend of Stephen and other early Christians.

Inside meanwhile Mary seems to be taking a leading role within the early church - you don't have to interpret it that way but it seems to be the implication. On this occasion, Mary tells a story from Jesus' childhood. And then a very quiet wind starts up inside but someone notices it's not blowing outside. The effects look dated and the soppy looks on the disciples faces are rather comical, but Peter delivers his speech with real charisma, and it's probably the best delivery of that sermon of all of these clips.

Visual Bible: Acts (1994)
Whilst the special effect here will hardly have broken the bank it's actually very effective. In contrast to many of the other version - and my own prior visualisation - the moment of the Spirit's coming is initially very serene rather than ecstatic. Very little else works here though. Dean Jones' narration is more obtrusive than Richard Kiley's in Matthew, the word for word aspect feels very forces and
James Brolin is just to handsome, clean cut and all-American to pass for Simon Peter. It's interesting comparing his charismatic proto-TV-politician with the hapless dimwit played by Gerrit Schoonhoven in the Matthew film.

Where the forced literalism really doesn't work is during the crowd's lengthy response to what they are seeing, especially the various members of the crowd taking turns to recite a selection of the nations represented there. It wouldn't have been funnier if they had all done it together Life of Brian style ("Yes we're all individuals... from Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene.)

St Peter (2005)
The start of this film is so awful I've never been able to get past the first quarter of an hour or so, and the relevant scene here crops up about 35 minutes in. It's certainly one of the more interesting and creative explorations of the scene. The outpouring of the spirit occurs just at the very moment that the disciples are beginning to realise that language might be a barrier to the spread of the gospel.

Inside the moment is strikingly depicted with flames shooting up in the arches behind Peter and the other apostles. Outside however a shock-wave seems to strike everyone in sight. In contrast with the other versions Peter says very little of the sermon from Acts. So effectively this take on the story emphasises experience over explanations.

The scene ends on a rather sour note however. A Roman soldier - the very one who was present at the death of Jesus - wants to be baptised as well, but Peter refuses. I'm interested to see how this pans out: I have a hunch the soldier in question may appear later in the film.

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.

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.

Acts of the Apostles (1957 - Living Bible ) Episodes 1 and 2

Back in September, I covered how the various film treatments of the book of Acts and the ministries of Peter and Paul depicted the dispute surrounding gentile admission to the church. There was one portrayal that was new to me at the time, which I'd been meaning to catch for a while - the Acts of the Apostles series from The Living Bible. This series was filmed in 1957, by a church based group, who also did various Old Testament Characters (incl. Elijah, Ruth and Gideon, and a series on Jesus. Anyway, I'm going to work my way through this series posting comments on a few episodes at a time along the way.

Acts of the Apostles Episode 1 – Endued with Power

Ascension recounted - (Acts 1:1-11)
Pentecost - (Acts 2:1-41)
Peter heals a beggar – (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter preaches to the onlookers – (Acts 3:11-26)
Peter, John and the Sanhedrin – (Acts 4:1-22)
Apostles heal many – (Acts 5:12-16)
Apostles Escape from Prison – (Acts 5:17-26)
Apostles before Sanhedrin – (Acts 5:27-42)
[Extra-biblical episode - Jewish Authorities persecute the early church]

As I've mentioned before, this is a very low budget series, and this opening episode makes that clear right from the off. Hence the ascension is not shown, merely recounted by the apostle John. This does have the benefit of leaving a difficult to visualise episode in the viewer's imagination, and focussing instead on the meaning of that event to the first Christians. Similarly, the tongues of fire arriving at Pentecost are kept off camera, yet referred to. What we see instead is the faces of the Parthians, Arabs etc. as they see what is occurring. This is typical, low budget stuff, but it was actually one of the most interesting treatments of this episode I can recall. Usually the effects look a bit hokey, and have to decide whether these "tongues" were an objective reality, as well as a subjective one. Furthermore, it places the focus on the crowd, who generally aren't really considered by these films.

Whilst the majority of the first five chapters of Acts are covered here, one incident is conspicuous by its absence - the deaths of Ananias and Saphira. This is a bit of a thorny episode causing problems for both those who claim that the cross soothed God's wrath, and those who consider there to be a more notable discrepancy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New. Actually it's interesting that the text never states that it was God who kills them. Whilst in our culture this seems to be the most obvious reading, it is also possible that either this was just an incredible coincidence, or that they died through fear, or that someone else killed them. Whichever way you go, (early) Christianity doesn't come out of it looking too good.

Finally, on this episode, the film makes on significant addition. Following on from Gamaliel's speech in Acts 5, the Sanhedrin not only flog the apostles before them, but continue a campaign of persecution against them. Whilst Acts does place the blame for Stephen's death on the Sanhedrin, it suggests that it was this incident that initiated the violence against the church, rather than simply being part of an ongoing campaign. Flogging was very much a form of internal discipline, whilst Saul's later campaign (Acts 8) suggest that the earl church was now considered by some as outside of the acceptable bounds of Judaism. The script for this montage describes what is happening by saying "Physical pain became their test, and lashes of the whip their badges of honour". Nowadays, it's hard not to see this in the light of The Passion of the Christ.

Acts Episode 2 – A Faithful Witness

Deacons chosen – (Acts 6:1-7)
Stoning of Stephen – (Acts 7:54-8:1)
Persecution of early church – (Acts 8:2-3)
Philip in Samaria – (Acts 8:4-25)
Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch – (Acts 8:26-40)

This episode covers in some depth events that are often excluded from films about the early church, which is mainly because many of these films focus on Peter, or Paul, rather than the other apostles who were also part of the early church. It's appropriate, then, that it starts with the choosing of the seven (Acts 6). It's interesting how these seven are initially selected to "wait on tables", but quickly graduate to bigger things (although this assumes it is this Philip, rather than the disciple found in the gospels).

Strangely, the narration to the film implies that there were a number of martyrs before Stephen, noting ominously how there were a growing number of widows because of the persecution. However, later on we see Stephen stoned, and there the narrator calls Stephen the first Christian martyr.

The other major incident here is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Here the Eunuch sits awkwardly in a Ben Hur style chariot (how many kinds were there) reading the scriptures whilst his driver takes a break. As the Ethiopian (who is not called a Eunuch in the film, presumably to save awkward questions from curious Sunday schoolers) reads the text before him, both he and Philip quote significantly more of Isaiah's suffering servant passage than Acts records.

Whilst it's likely that their discussion was longer than Acts records, this is also the reading back into Acts a later Christian association, notably with substitutionary atonement theology. It's interesting that, this is one of seven NT references to Isaiah 53 (Matt 8:17, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, John 12:38, Acts 8:32–33, Rom 10:16 and 1 Pet 2:22–24) yet the parts of that passage which support substitutionary atonement are notably absent here (and in the other six, except, possibly, the 1 Peter reference).

Finally, I always like to observe how New Testament films deals with baptism, and here it is full immersion baptism (with the Eunuch lowered backwards into the water as shown).

Galatians vs Acts in Film

It’s great to see Mark Goodacre is back up to full speed with his blog at New Testament Gateway. Mark’s currently exploring the relationship between the contrasting accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts and Galatians. It’s a subject I’ve looked at in some length before and it’s one of those subjects I find fascinating. Mark’s posts are making me re-consider my position, which is always good, and I’d suggest taking a peak yourself.

So I thought it would be good to look at the various ways these incidents have been portrayed on film, and see how they try and combine the source material into a coherent account.

The Living Bible: Acts (1957)
(Episodes 3 to 6 of 10 – total run time ~ 180 minutes)
The Living Bible series takes a fairly literal approach to the bible and Acts is no exception. The story is largely narrated, intentionally based on Acts and rarely adds extra-biblical material. However, the 160 or so minutes run time is divided into 10 self contained episodes, and as a result there are incidents present in Acts but which falls between episodes.

Episode 3 Light From Heaven deals with the conversion of Saul, but leaves him in Damascus, before flashing forward to a far older Paul reciting 1 Tim 1:15-17. The next episode is No Respecter of Persons which deals with Peter and Cornelius and so Paul’s possible visit to Jerusalem at this point is omitted.

The fifth episode is God’s Care of his Own which deals with the church’s collection for those in Jerusalem, and Peter’s escape from prison. Whilst we see Paul and Barnabas making the collection, and setting off to take it to Jerusalem, we never actually see them arrive. Hence, the point at which the two of them arrive is left open to interpretation, and could be read as suggesting that they arrived much later and that there are parallel chronologies here.

Episode 6 is simply a conglomerate of mission related clips from the first 13 chapters of Acts, but in episode 7, Salvation and Christian Fellowship we arrive at the council at Jerusalem. The council is initially a very public affair, but cleverly incorporates the word “privately” in Gal 2:2 by having a smaller group go to a different room to make their decision which reflects Acts rather than Galatians. Unusually here there is heavy interpretation applied. The film’s narrator describes the decision as reflecting the majority, and calls council’s letter a “happy solution”, and “wonderfully friendly and frank”. So the film appears to support aligning Gal 2:11-16 with events leading up to the council (Acst 15:1-2) rather than following it as the Galatian letter suggests, although it has such a high view of Peter that his involvement is absent here.


Peter and Paul (1981)
(Between 30-90 mins for a 180 minute long film)
Here only two people lower Saul from the walls of Damascus, and the implication is that these are not his disciples. Paul is also beaten in Damascus (no reference in the text) We are then told it is 38AD and Paul is in Jerusalem to see Peter. The film here deftly combines the accounts from Acts 9:26-31 and Galatians 1:18-24. Paul comes to Jerusalem to talk to Peter, but the apostles are afraid of him. Barnabas arranges a meeting between the two and Peter and Paul spend a lot of time together, which it is easy to conceive is the 15 days of Gal. 1:18 (Peter even takes Paul to Galilee). Finally Paul meets James, and leaves for Tarsus (Acts 9:30).

It is then 8 years before we meet Saul again (46 AD). Barnbas mentions that Jerusalem is starving (rather than Agabus prophesying it) and tells Paul about the forthcoming meeting in Antioch. We never see this meeting instead the action moved onto Peter’s escape from Prison in Acts 12. When he arrives at the house of Mary and John Mark, Barnabas has just also arrived without Paul, but with a supply of food. Clearly this is a slight, but significant alteration. The film moves fairly meticulously through the available material at this point, eventually ending up with the council in Jerusalem (precipitated by Barnabas being told on his trip to Jerusalem that Greeks have to conform to Jewish law). The Jerusalem Council starts as a large and angry affair, but manoeuvres skilfully around the word “privately” in Gal 2:2 by having the major players go off into a side room to decide what to do. James’s decision, though, is to place “no restrictions” on the Gentile believers appearing to prefer Galatians to Acts. Peter then accompanies Paul to Antioch, and it is then that the events of Gal 2:11-14 occur. It is here that we see this film’s cleverest pieces of writing. The men that arrive from James bring the letter of Acts 15:23-30. The split from Barnabas is both due to his seeing Peter’s point of view and his support for John Mark (the reason given in Acts and in Galatians). Thus Paul continues his misson without ever having been party to the restrictions on the Gentiles.


Visual Bible: Acts (1994)
(Between 55-110 mins for a 180 minute long film)
This is a 3 hour word for word visualisation of Acts and so it has to present all of the Acts material and obviously largely ignores Galatians. Because it uses the NIV Paul’s escape from Damascus is assisted by his “followers” rather than the more committed-sounding “disciples” in some translations. Interestingly once this action has been shown we cut to a boat where an older Luke narrates the events of Acts 9:27-31.

The text then continues with stories about Peter, and some of these are shown whilst others are again narrated from the boat. Significantly Acts 11:25-30 is again just narrated. The action returns for the story about Peter’s imprisonment, and Herod’s death. We do see Paul in relation to Act 12:24, but he is not in Jerusalem, but walking in the countryside.

When it comes to the Jerusalem council, we are shown the action, although again the dispute in Antioch is not depicted (Luke simply smiles as he narrates this argument – hardly the way Paul feels about this dispute). The council of Jerusalem seems like a very well mannered affair. We also do not see the letter of Acts 15:23-29.

So whilst the nature of this project means that the film has to narrate these passages, the visuals do all they can to downplay the early appearance(s) in Jerusalem, and the controversy that led to the events of Acts 1. Whether this is just to avoid alienating some of their potential audience, or just to avoid commenting on such issues is hard to discern.

Paul the Emissary (1997)
(Between 9-15 mins for a 54 minute long film)
This is a very short film about Paul, and actually focuses a high proportion of its run time on the later part of Acts. Strangely it leaves out any trips by Paul to Jerusalem prior to the events of Acts 21. It’s main focus is on Paul’s preaching and so it ignores the theological issues that Council of Jerusalem throws up, in order to spend more time listening to Paul’s speeches such as that at Athens.


St. Paul [known as Paul the Apostle in the US](2000)
(Between 90-150 mins for a 180 minute long film)
Paul goes from Damascus to Jerusalem and meets Peter (and James) in a private meeting. He stays around Jerusalem and has another private meeting with Peter and James later on. They agree that Peter should go to Lydda, Barnabas to Antioch, Paul to Tarsus (9:30) whilst James stays in Jerusalem. So this is clearly Acts 9 territory. Initially Peter wants to delay message to Gentiles, and both he and James see it as meaning new rules for any potential gentile converts. Next time we see Peter he recounts his vision, but submits to James over Jewish/Gentile practice. Later Barnabas collect Paul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25-26) and they head to Cyprus (Acts 13:2-4), Herod dies (Acts 12:20-25), Paul and Barnabas go to Lystra, before arriving in Antioch.

Once in Antioch, Peter, and some people from James are there, and Paul accuses him and Barnabas of hypocrisy. So the film ties together the Acts 15 and Gal 2 accounts. The chronology fits with Acts (and goes against the order in Galatians 2), but Barnabas’s hypocrisy is in line with Galatians 2. This is followed by the Jerusalem council which is of such a size so it can be interpreted as either private or public. Peter is persuaded by Paul’s arguments, and so James decides that there is no burden except to keep the (ten) commandments, and there is no mention of the collection or of the letter. Paul and Barnabas then split over whether to go to Rome or not, ignoring both the excuse about Mark from Acts and the explanation in Galatians regarding Barnabas. Next thing, Paul is in Athens (Acts 17) and the film moves on.

One final observation, it is interesting to see how the film’s early baptisms are sprinklings whereas a later baptism is carried out by full immersion.

======

There are two other relevant films that I’ve been unable to cover. The most well known is AD / Anno Domini the TV series from 1985, which I saw when I was a boy, but have not seen since. If any of you who have seen it more recently (or even own it) want to contribute how this films deals with these issues, please do so via the comments.

The other is Roberto Rosellini’s Atti Degli Apostoli which at 5 hours and 42 minutes is almost twice as long as any of the other films. Given that runtime, and since it also downplays the supernatural events recorded in Acts one would expect it to give a good amount of time to these events, and indeed it does. Almost all of the "fourth chapter" is given over to the Council of Jerusalem.

It is interesting that none of these films support the minority conservative chronology (that equates Gal. 1 with Acts 9, and Gal 2 with Acts 11), and that they tend to equate the first visit with Acts 9 and the second with Acts 15, generally downplaying Acts 11 and 12. However, the dispute with Peter (Gal 2:11-14) occurs in various places, both before and after the Council of Jerusalem, in watered down form, or not at all.