Biblical Studies Carnival XXXIV

Photo by Tim Parkinson, used under a Creative Commons Licence

Over at MetaCatholic, Doug Chaplin has posted the 34th Biblical Studies Carnival (see Biblical Studies Carnival">all previous entries). He goes for an A-Z approach and it's nice to get a mention under 'F' for film for my posts on Channel 5's Secrets of the Cross series.

Next month it's the turn of Duane Smith's Abnormal Interests blog for Carnival number 35. Duane previous produced Carnival 21.

Trial Of The Knights Templar

Having reviewed the three other entries in Channel Five's religious documentary series Secrets of the Cross, I thought that, for the sake of completeness, I would offer a few comments on tonight's programme Trial Of The Knights Templar.

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the Templars. In fact, I'm ashamed to say that most of what I have been told about them came from "The Da Vinci Code" and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. So as something of novice I'm hoping tonight's episode was at least as accurate as the earlier entries were.

Having said all that, had I sat down and made a list of all the topics I thought this programme would cover I would have got a good deal of it correct. So talk of their trade in relics, the Holy Grail and the Turin Shroud occupy the programme's early stages. This then leads back into a more detailed look at the Crusades. But, for a modern documentary, the approach the filmmakers took was most unusual. Instead of telling the usual tales of crusader violence towards Muslims, Jews, and even other Christians, the Templars were treated far more deferentially. Whilst this approach may have been in vogue 50 years ago, its rare that anyone praises the crusaders for anything these days. Whilst it certainly wasn't a whitewash, it did feel a little odd.The film then turns its attentions to the fall of the Templars at the hands of Philip IV. Here we are told about the power hungry king and a weak and vacillating pope. Philip was in debt to the Templars and so charged them with heresy to get them out of the way. Pope Clement absolved the Templars (even despite a damning, and recently re-discovered, report into their initiation ceremonies) but was ultimately unable to save them from Philip's schemes.

It's to the film's credit that during its final section, which examines what became of the Templars and their still undiscovered wealth, it never once mentions Opus Dei, or "The Da Vinci Code". All of which leaves me with the impression that it may, actually, be reasonably trustworthy, and Wikipedia, at least (!), broadly agrees with the programme's presentation.

Once more, the visuals are fairly impressive, and whilst the score for this series was starting to become a little tiresome overall, it was no less effective here than in any of the other episodes.

Saint or Sinner Review at ReJesus and CTVC Trial of the Templars Page

I've just got a couple more pieces on Channel 5's Secrets of the Cross series. Firstly, following my review here for Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner?, I have written a second, quite different review for rejesus.

Secondly, producers CTVC have uploaded a page on their website about their final entry in the series Trial of the Templars. Here's their summary

Mysterious warriors in The Da Vinci Code, the real Knights Templar have been shrouded in mystery for 900 years... A corporation of Christian Crusaders condemned by the lies and disloyalty of their allies, the Templars are inseparable from the legendary Holy Grail. In an eerie story taking us from Paris and Avignon to ancient tunnels under Jerusalem, a shocking manuscript unearthed in the Vatican shows that the Templars were liquidated by an extremist with a Christ complex, amid a tale of corporate greed. Though viciously tortured by the King of France, did the Templars ultimately aid in their own destruction..?

I'm going to wait until I've seen this before deciding whether to review it and if so where. It's not a Jesus film as such so I may leave commenting on this episode to others.

Edit: The CTVC website now has short excerpts from reviews at The Sunday Times, the Mail and the Express, though strangely I've not been able to find those reviews at those paper's websites.

Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner

Channel Five's Secrets of the Cross series continued last night with Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner. Having downplayed the Jesus Tomb controversy, I was curious to see what angle the filmmakers would take this time around. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has proved so popular that there's little mileage to be made converting Leigh Teabing's lecture into a documentary and the film's publicity suggested that would be focussing elsewhere.

After a brief introduction the film explores the subtleties of the brief details about Mary found in the Bible and proceeds to explain how she came to be thought of as a prostitute. Having aquitted Pope Gregory for slander (he was, apparently, simply trying to provide a role model for sinners) we move to Magdala to hear about the rebellion-tinged peasant lifestyle that Mary would have left to follow Jesus. There's then a passage about Mary's exorcism which suggests that it was invented by Luke to damage her credibility. This is practically the only controversial assertion in the first half of the film, and we're soon back into consensus country with the claim that Mary was a women of wealth who was one of Jesus's supporters.

The second part of the film begins by looking at what the non-canonical gospels have to say about Mary. This is one of the weaker sections of the film. It starts with the Gospel of Philip's "used to kiss her on the [blank]" passage which Bart Ehrman defly demythologises. But it's apparently close enough to the "Da Vinci Code" to justify a brief excursus to examine the strange Provencal traditions that surround Mary. It's all a bit odd and rather spoils the programme's flow. There's a mention of Mary as a mystic and we return, somewhat awkwardly, to gnostic writings and the Gospel of Mary. Ehrman tries bravely to downplay the importance of the Gospel of Mary, but the narrator gets the final word in and, as with the 2006 documentary The Secrets of Mary Magdalene, we're left with the impression that all ancient documents should be set on an equal footing. As with Brown's novel the somewhat grassroots evolution of the biblical canon is ultimately overlooked and the process is depicted instead as a conspiracy.The final section returns to look at Mary's importance as the first witness of the resurrection. But it all ends up in something of a muddle. So Mary is meant to be important because she was the first witness to the resurrection. But actually she just had a vision. Which, it turned out, was no good as evidence because she was just an "hysterical woman". But thankfully she inspired the men to have them too. And then their stories inspired the empty tomb story. Meanwhile they ignored her mystic wisdom and wrote her out of the story. All of which is supposed to make her the real founder of Christianity and somehow comendable eventhough it means she ultimately mislead millions of people.

So the film concludes that she was neither a leader in the early church, nor an intimate companion, she was just in the right place at the right time. Except, is it possible for there to be a right place and a right time if you just happen to be hallucinating? And does it count as being in the right place at the right time if you get written out of the story later anyway?

Tenous final segments aside, there are one or two memorable visuals. The switch between the woman washing Jesus's feet and Mary (played by Lucy Shaljian) was effective. On the other hand, the sight of the inhabitants of Provence hoisting the gold-space-suit-clad skull of Mary through the streets will stay with me for all the wrong reasons. But it perhaps reflects the documentary as a whole: It's just a group of people making a lot of noise about something that is showy, full of air but ultimately unprovable at the core. Perhaps they should have stuck with Dan Brown.

===============

In related news, Mark Goodacre has posted his own thoughts on Who Really Killed Jesus and the only quality daily paper still covering this is The Telegraph and even they appear to have simply re-hashed the Channel 5 blurb.

More on Secrets of The Cross

Channel 5's religious documentary series Secrets of the Cross continues tomorrow night with Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner The Channel Five website doesn't have a dedicated page to this yet, but the listings describe the show as follows:

Religious documentary focusing on the life and legend of Mary Magdalene. Recorded in the Bible as the first person to see Christ after the Resurrection, Mary's exact role in Christianity has long been debated. This film examines the scant details of her life and questions the theory that she was deliberately sidelined by the Christian church in order to protect the male hierarchy.

Filmmakers CTVC, however, have published their page and it summarises it thus:

Mary Magdalene’s vision of a risen Jesus was the spark that ignited the flame of Christianity, turning the Jesus Movement from a minor Jewish sect into a new world faith. Without her there may never have been Christianity.

Yet strangely, rather than celebrate her as a founder of the faith, the Gospels say almost nothing about her, the early Christian church branded her a whore and western art and literature have constantly reinvented her down the centuries. She remains one of the most mysterious women in history.

This programme goes in search of the real Mary Magdalene and asks whether all the conspiracy theories hide an even greater truth.

Interestingly, both synopses suggest the documentary will be calling into question the theories about Mary popularised by The Da Vinci Code. As with Secrets of the Jesus Tomb it appears that this film will debunk the debunkers.

I'll hopefully review that at some point in the middle of the week. Meanwhile, I've written a different review of Who Really Killed Jesus for ReJesus. I'm both surprised and disappointed that none of the other bibliobloggers have published their reviews or thoughts yet. It was a serious documentary which will have engaged viewers that might not ordinarily be interested in Biblical Studies. Mark Goodacre has promised to post something, but otherwise it seems like bit of an opportunity missed.

Who Really Killed Jesus?

Hot on the heels of last week's Channel 5 documentary The Secrets of the Jesus Tomb (my review) comes Who Really Killed Jesus, the second in a series of four films collectively titled Secrets of the Cross. On paper this looks likely to be the most serious of the four. Instead of paranoid claims about conspiracy theories that rock Christianity to the core we get a thoughtful investigation as to how to interpret the Bible in the light of historical research.

The Gospels, we're told, paint Pilate as an "indecisive and weak" ruler bullied into crucifying Jesus by the Jewish people and their Chief Priests. History suggests otherwise and that the 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism which followed as a result were based on a piece of spin by the gospel writers.

Of course the premise is a little too black and white. The historical evidence carries a good deal of weight - Philo and Josephus both criticise Pilate's brutality; Roman soldiers were battle hardened such that one man's death would be highly unlikely to trouble someone such as Pilate; and crucifixion was incredibly commonplace, particularly around religious festivals - but the evidence the programme omits polarises "what the Bible says" and "what history says" unnecessarily. After all the Bible itself records an example of Pilate's viciousness. Luke 13:1 tells us about the "Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices". And the Nicene Creed holds Pilate, rather than any of his Jewish counterparts, responsible for Jesus's death.

The historical case is presented very strongly here. Starting off in the Caesarean amphitheatre with the stone carrying an engraving of Pilate's name which was discovered in 1961, the programme quickly moves on to Rome to trace his background in the context of the empire's politics. He would have nepotised his way to an army commission and ended up being sent to Judea in 26 AD as its prefect. His 3000 troops were based at Caesarea and had to keep the peace amongst perhaps 160,000 natives desperate to throw off their Roman oppressors. His response was to rule with such brutality that ultimately he was recalled to Rome in disgrace.Whilst academics may quibble with some of the details, as they do with each other's arguments whenever they engage in serious discussion, it's a detailed presentation of the facts and leading interpretations that's fairly unexpected for a documentary on Channel 5. There were a number of things which, I am semi-embarrassed to admit, were new to me, even if the thrust of the overall argument was very much familiar.

This is down, in part, to the strength of the team of experts that Channel 5 assembled to tell their story. 3-4 years ago this documentary would have found Mark Goodacre popping up with insightful contributions. This time around we get Helen Bond, James Tabor, Yosef Porath, Alexander Yakobson, and biographer Anne Wroe. Even Shimon Gibson pops up having seemingly got lost on his way back from the Jesus Tomb feature. The emphasis is clearly more on archaeologists than textual scholars, but when three of a documentary's team of experts have been involved in excavating key Judean locations it gives it real credibility.

There's also some good use of location shooting. Whilst documentaries cannot match the depth that a book can provide they can illustrate things more powerfully in a single shot than a written work can ever hope to achieve. As there's a good deal of archaeology being discussed it helps to see the locations in question. Twice, James Tabor is able to turn and use the topography in the background to make his point. And the shot from the top of a watchtower in Jerusalem perfectly illustrates the way Pilate's men would have been able to keep an eye on the city during busy periods.

The film's other strength is its desire to remain level headed. There's the odd spurious claim ("extraordinarily there's no hard evidence any of it happened"), but generally it lets the experts speak and resists the temptation to crank things up into a scandal.

That said, many will disagree with the film's conclusions, not least in evangelical circles. Whilst most accept that the gospels recontextualise the story to appeal to their specific audiences, the suggestion that they did it out of a desire to appeal to Rome and distance themselves from the Jews will be too much for some. Likewise with the suggestion that the passover amnesty was simply a "literary device". To a certain extent they have my sympathy, but the problem is that failing to read the gospels in this context has led to centuries of anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust. While it's uncomfortable for some to wrestle with the issue of the historicity of the gospels, it's an essential task. It's simply not good enough to say that the perpetrators of anti-Semitism over the years were just not following Jesus's example.

Secrets of the Jesus Tomb at ReJesus

I meant to post this earlier in the week, but my article on last week's Channel 5 documentary Secrets of the Jesus Tomb is now up at ReJesus.

I also noticed that James Tabor, who is interviewed in the documentary, has a short piece on the programme, although he is yet to actually see it. However, he also mentions that this is the first in a series of four documentaries called "Secrets of the Cross" with future shows about Mary Magdalene, Jesus's death, and the Knights Templar. The second film in the series, Who Really Killed Jesus, apparently aired this Tuesday and is now also available on Five on Demand. I'll post a review of that one shortly.

Secrets of the Jesus Tomb: Reviews

I didn't manage to catch Channel 5's Tuesday night documentary Secrets of the Jesus Tomb by CTVC. That said, it's available to view online so I might see if I can find the time before it disappears. Essentially it's covering the same story as last year's The Lost Tomb of Jesus only without involving James Cameron. Here's Five's website blurb:

In 1980, an ancient tomb was unearthed on a building site in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot. Inside the tomb, archaeologists Amos Kloner and Shimon Gibson were intrigued to discover several boxes of bones – "ossuary’s"[sic.] – dating from the first century AD. The inscriptions on the side of these boxes included the names "Jesus son of Joseph", "Mary", another Mary in the rare form of "Mariamne", "Jose", "Matthew" and – perhaps most fascinating of all – "Judah son of Jesus".

The similarity of these names to the New Testament family and disciples of Jesus Christ were clear, yet the boxes were removed from the tomb and left untouched in the stores of the Israeli Antiquity Authority for over 20 years. It was not until the early years of this century that Bible historian James Tabor began to wonder if the tomb at Talpiot was in fact the final resting place of Christ.

A series of scientific tests and a close analysis of ancient texts seemed to suggest that this could indeed be the tomb of Jesus, especially if the ossuary ascribed to "Mariamne the master" could be associated with Mary Magdalene. If this connection was made, it would also suggest that the ‘Judah son of Jesus’ ossuary belonged to Jesus’s son.

Five is probably the most lowbrow of British TV's terrestrial channels. (Whoever composed the photo above doesn't seem to have grasped that the bones are meant to be kept in the boxes, and, if you're going to promote a documentary about the "Jesus Tomb" you should probably learn how to spell "ossuaries"). That said there are a number of scholars although it's no surprise to find Bart Ehrman and James Tabor are the most prominent.

Yesterday's papers featured reviews from The Times and The Telegraph, whilst The Guardian simply mentions that the show "attracted 1.4 million" viewers.

Mark Goodacre has a good length review rejecting some of the more dismissive reviews

The documentary makers should, however, be lauded for avoiding sensationalism and for sounding fairly reasonable, at least by the end of the programme. A few features showed some sensitivity to scholarly conventions, like the use of "BCE" and "CE" (unexplained in the programme) rather than "BC" and "AD", but at other points repeated cliché (Christianity rocked to its foundations) and banality (Jesus was not a Christian) will have turned away the educated viewer. And if they said that ossuaries were bone boxes once, they said it a hundred times.

Jim West also makes a few comments, mainly based on Andrea Mullaney's review in The Scotsman.

Edit: Having Just watched this a few further comments to add. Firstly, I think this documentary benefited from being shown over a year after the Jesus Tomb story first broke (or at least regained our attention). One of the comments made at the time was that the because the news was released such a short time before the documentary there was no time for the wider scholarly community to sift it properly. Now that time has passed some of the objections to the theory that this is in fact Jesus's tomb have been allowed to, um, ossify.

Secondly, as I only had this on in the background, I only caught some of the visuals, but it seemed that, at least on that level, that it was nicely put together. It was nice to see someone looking genuinely middle eastern playing Jesus, and there were some interesting angles and nice dissolves etc.

Finally, it seems that Helen Bond was involved at some stage as she is pictured on the Channel Five website, but she seems to have been cut out of the final programme. That's a not only a little bit cheeky, but also a bit of a shame. It would have been nice to have a few more British scholars involved.