Bible Films Blog Review of 2010

2010 was a comparatively quiet year for Bible films, distinguished only by a couple of good TV series at the start and the end of the year. The start was Channel 4's series The Bible: A History, a seven documentaries that covered Creation, Abraham, The Ten Commandments, Daughters of Eve, Jesus, Paul and Revelation. Although it was Howard Jacobson's take on Genesis 1-2, a pre-Strictly Anne Widdecombe's defence of the Decalogue and, most of all, Gerry Adams's examination of the gospels that grabbed the headlines, it was the other programmes that proved the most interesting (Rageh Omar's tangential look at the Abrahamic faiths aside). Bettany Hughes's look at the women of the Bible, and Tom Holland's re-appraisal of Paul that stand out and Robert Beckford was, as ever, good value on the Apocalypse.

The length of Channel 4 series meant that it didn't end until early March, just a few weeks before Easter. The Easter period this year was certainly a disappointment. The last few years have seen a number of productions targeting Easter 2010 as a potential release date. Alas none made it through. The one exception was Eric Idle and Co's one-night-only screening of their oratorio Not the Messiah. It had been broadcast on New Year's Day in the UK, and didn't really grab me. It's funny enough in its own way, but most of the humour, for me, lay in remembering how funny the corresponding parts of Life of Brian are. Mark Goodacre disagreed.

One of the promised productions that was not released as originally suggested was the new Ben Hur mini-series. In the end it was only broadcast in Canada, which is funny because when I finally reviewed it, I did kind of like it.

And that was pretty much it until Christmas. While the world was preparing to celebrate Jesus's birth and the magi's journey to discover the new born king, the silver screen was being graced by what is, I suppose, another story of the same ilk. The story of the magi and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader are both stories about long journeys to seek the face of Jesus/Aslan which reflect our own journeys of faith. But despite having one of the longest titles in the history of popular cinema, Dawn Treader struggled at the box office. It was a shame given that it is arguably the best film in the franchise so far.

Top billing for 2010 however must go to the BBC's The Nativity. The four half hour episodes were striped across the week leading up to Christmas gaining decent viewing figures and good reviews. As much as I liked it, many of those I've read or spoken to seemed to like it a great deal more than me. For me, and this is probably just my rugby player side coming to the fore, it was just a little bit trite in places, a weakness easily forgiven in light of the other strengths the film displayed. It will be interesting to see what the BBC do with this. There was talk a while back of them releasing a series of animated films on the Bible, but it's been a long time since I read anything about that project.

There were a couple of other things worth mentioning about the last year. BBC2's series Rev, a humorous look at the life of an inner-city vicar was wince inducing and hilarious. Series 2 has been commissioned and hopefully we will see that next year. There was also a sad note as we lost one of the most prominent actresses from the (second) golden age of the biblical epic, Jean Simmons. Simmons starred in some of my favourite films and her versatile body of work will live on as testament to her talent.

Update on Kingdom Come

Just a quick update on the planned New Zealand Jesus film Kingdom Come. According to The Dominion Post. The production owes $5.8 million (I assume that's NZD, each of which is worth about half a UK pound) to its 275 creditors, but has come up with an anonymous donor who has put up $1 million to pay off some of them and delay the rest for a year so that they can find the rest. The hope is that this donor, or others, might not only help the production clear its debts, but also provide enough money to see it through to completion. It seems like quite a big ask, but at least story isn't dead yet.

Review Round-up for The Nativity

The fourth and final part of the BBC's Nativity aired earlier this evening , so I thought this would be as good as time as any to link to a few reviews. I'll start with my own review at rejesus.co.uk. It's shorter and more concise than my review for this blog and as I didn't have to leave out too much detail then it seems to have benefited form being re-edited.

Generally the series seems to have been something of a hit. The broadsheets (ignoring the pay-walling Times for obvious reasons) all praised it. The Independent praised Jordan's script. "He has done a proper stand-up job on The Nativity, pulling off the considerable trick of making the miraculous sound credible". The Telegraph is also in favour particularly the "impressive performances as Mary and Joseph by Tatiana Maslany and Andrew Buchan, who wear the haunted but determined looks of humble people suddenly endowed with terrifying responsibility." Their editorial also praises the production and they have a few photos from it in their Nativity Picture Gallery. The Guardian was similarly positive:

That's what is nice about this new telling of an old story: it will resonate, and it's relevant. It's very human, too, because that's what it's about, the characters and what happens to them and between them, rather than the message. In short, it's not preachy, and that's a relief.

The paper also had a story about an objection to the programme by Rabbi Jonathan Romain. The BBC denied Romain's claim that the portrayal of Nazareth's synagogue leader was anti-Semitic citing his overall role in the story. And it's not just Romain who's objecting. According to the Daily Express, the media's go-to Christian-nutter-spokesman Stephen Green of Christian Voice is criticising the programme for using its "imagination". Whatever next! To give Green his due, he also raises a number of other objections, all of which are equally ridiculous.

Back in the real world. Doug Chaplin has been reviewing each episode straight after broadcast (see 1, 2, 3, 4). I'm really glad Doug has done this, not only because it's far more in-depth than my own reviews, but also because going through episode by episode results in a very difference approach and discussion. Overall Doug is positive about the drama but not about the history.

It's also got good marks on the IMDb: 8.6 at present. I think that's a little high personally, but I'm kind of pleased to see it doing well. It also did well in terms of ratings. According to digitalspy.co.uk the first episode was watched by "an impressive 5.21m" placing it second for the night behind only David Jason's Come Rain Come Shine's 5.78 million. This is slightly higher than the audience for 2008's The Passion which peaked at 4.9 million viewers. The Nativity has held on fairly well too. Episode 2 recorded 4.8 million.

If you've not yet had a chance to watch it, all four episodes are available from the BBC's iPlayer for another week. I'm fairly sure that this will be UK users only.

You can read my previous posts on this production here. I've had a few comments on the assumed inaccuracy of the magi and the shepherds arriving at roughly the same time. If I get time I may devote a post to this question, but for now allow me to point towards a sermon by Ben Witherington III and Mark Goodacre's podcast, both of which (indirectly) explain why this is at least a possibility.

Christmas UK TV Schedule 2010

Regular readers are probably sick of me saying this but, at Christmas and Easter I like to do a little preview of any Bible films or related programmes showing over the festive period. All times are GMT (24 hour clock) and anything starting after midnight is listed under the next day.

MON 20th DEC
The Nativity: Part 1 [2010] BBC1 19:00
Star attraction for this year is BBC1's four part mini-series The Nativity. My review of the film went up earlier, but I'd recommend that you watch it and judge for yourselves. Episode 1 intrioduces us to Mary, Joseph and Mary's parents Joachin and Anna. Parts 2-4 are showing from Tuesday 21st to Thursday 23rd also starting at 7:30pm.

TUE 21st DEC
The Nativity: Part 2. BBC1 19:00
Part 2 of the BBC1 drama that started on the 21st. Mary takes a trip to see her cousin Elizabeth and gain her advice. Part 3 is broadcast on Wednesday the 22nd December.

WED 22nd DEC
The Nativity: Part 3. BBC1 19:00
The penultimate episode finds Mary's father begging Joseph to take her with him on his census trip to Bethlehem.

THUR 23rd DEC
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe [2005] BBC1 15:50
With the latest instalment of The Chronicles of Narnia franchise Voyage of the Dawn Treader currently doing the rounds in cinemas, the Beeb is showing the two previous films in the series, starting with Lewis's Jesus parable The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Prince Caspian airs on Christmas Eve.

The Nativity: Part 4. BBC1 19:00
Final episode of the mini-series, and the strongest bringing together all the strands from the previous three episode with a fitting climax.

Jesus Christ, Superstar [1973] ITV1 23:50
It's a passion play set to music so it's hardly Christmassy, but it's still probably the Jesus film that has the widest following (excluding Life of Brian) and so it's good to see it getting a run out in the lead in to Christmas. Fans of Tim Rice/Andrew Lloyd-Webber's musicals based on the Bible should also tune in on Boxing Day for Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

FRI 24th DEC
Prince Caspian [2008] BBC1 17:15
Part 2 of the Narnia franchise is the worst of the three in my opinion, not least for the terrible span-eesh accents that were mercifully dropped for part 3. If they ever get Ben Barnes to re-dub his role I'd be keen to see it, but otherwise for all it's profundity and impressive CGI, Caspian is still somewhat painful to watch.

SUN 26th DEC
Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Channel 5 17:10
I'm never quite sure whether Technicolour should have a "u" in it or not. It's the kind of question that might keep one entertained during this terrible version of the Joseph story. This version starts off set in a school and is super, super camp. Bizarrely, the only other version of it I've seen was that performed by my own school over twenty years ago. I suspect that may have had the edge over this, although Donny Osmond fans will no doubt treasure it.

Aside from the above on the main terrestrial channels there are a few films on the satelite/cable channels that will be of interest to Bible film fans including a good number of Cecil B. DeMille films. Here are some highlights:

Fri 24th Dec - Indie: A Serious Man [2009] (20:00)

Sat 25th Dec - More4: The Robe [1953] (09:00); Sky Movies Classics: Cleopatra [1934] (06:40), Ben Hur [1959] (12:10 and 22:45) and The Bible, In the Beginning [1966] (18:05)

Sun 26th Dec - Sky Movies Classics: The Bible, In the Beginning [1966] (04:35), Samson and Delilah [1949] (09:20), The Crusades [1935] (11:30), Spartacus [1960] (13:45 and 22:40), Cleopatra [1934] (17:00)

Mon 27th Dec - Sky Movies Classics: Samson and Delilah [1949] (01:50), The Crusades [1935] (04:05)

Thu 30th Dec - Film 4: The Ten Commandments [1956] (11:00); Sky Movies Classics: Ben Hur [1959] (17:30); Indie: A Serious Man [2009] (11:35 and 18:30)

Review: The Nativity (BBC1)

I think I’ll always remember the Christmas of 1981. My little brother had been born just a couple of weeks before and landed his first acting role, as baby Jesus in our church’s re-enactment of the first Christmas. This year has provided another similarly unforgettable moment when my daughter Nina performed in her first school nativity play.

Given how many people have taken part in a nativity play, it seems strange that professional actors so rarely get the chance. The 2006 film The Nativity Story was the first time an English language film on the subject had been cinemas since 1914. Television has proved a more popular medium with a couple of US TV movies from the 1970s and 2007’s Liverpool Nativity among them. Nevertheless, a decent, recent, historical attempt at explaining the origins of our culture’s most widely celebrated seasonal festival is long overdue.

Whilst The Nativity isn’t flawless it certainly goes a long way to addressing the imbalance. Tony Jordan’s script skilfully blends together the two differing accounts from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, weaving in scientific theory and cultural exposition with great ease without ever being ruled by them. Take for example the trouble that Mary and Joseph have finding accommodation in Bethlehem despite it being the town his family is from. It somehow manages to answer queries such as this, whilst simultaneously nodding to some of the now cherished traditions that have grown up around the text.

The biggest problem with the programme is that while Jordan’s experience in writing a soap opera gives it a realistic ordinariness, things occasionally feel a little bit twee. This is primarily the case in the opening episode where Joseph and Mary spend a little too long during their betrothal party starring gooily into one another’s eyes. That said, it certainly improves thereafter.

This may in part be due to the actors. Andrew Buchan’s turn as Joseph is overall very good, but I only bought into his character once Mary had revealed she was pregnant. From there he undergoes an emotional journey which mirrors his physical journey, drawn towards his destiny step by step, one small act of goodness at a time. In contrast Mary (Tatiana Maslany) spends most of the series trying to formulate exactly what it is that she is involved in, only for all the pieces to drop into place once Jesus is born.

If the first episode is the weakest, then the last is certainly the strongest. It’s here we see Jordan pulling together the film’s three main threads into a quite moving finale. Wisely Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is excluded which means that the story’s climax is Jesus’ birth and the arrival of the shepherds and the magi. Jordan has talked about this being a “love story” (a genre of which I must say I’m not hugely appreciative) but making this aspect of the story culminate at the same time as the more important story does underlines the latter’s importance. God’s son has come to Earth.

At its heart The Nativity is a very human take on the story. When Gabriel appears to Mary it’s very low-key. There’s no dazzling light, indeed as he appears to Mary outside, and during the night, it leaves open the slight possibilities that this might not be an angel at all or that she may only be dreaming. Joseph’s encounter is stripped down even further. Gabriel remains off-screen, so we only hear about what has happened because Joseph tells us next morning. This is, for me, is actually one of the best and most inventive parts of the series, holding very closely to the biblical text, and yet offering a very fresh interpretation of it that seems very plausible in such a sceptical age.

The human emphasis on the story is apparent in other ways. The only parts of the gospel accounts to be excluded are the announcement of John’s birth, the encounters with Simeon and Anna, and the songs of Mary and Zechariah. Then there’s the birth scene itself which breaks from certain traditions in order to deliver a fairly realistic portrayal of the child’s birth. Of all the attempts to depict the moment that Christ came into the world this is definitely the most plausible. And added into this mix are the back stories of the Magi and one of the shepherds.

Overall, I think this is probably my favourite portrayal of these events on film. Whilst it doesn’t quite match up to the best aspects of The Nativity Story, it certainly stays well above that film’s worst. The Nativity Story never quite knew what it wanted to be. This production is much more sure footed, and, as a result it’s more consistent. Jordan and director Coky Giedroyc are content to take their time over the first few episodes to build their characters, setting up very effective cliff hangers at the end of each episode in an attempt to pull the audience back the following night. Those who take the bait will find it well worth the wait.

Part 1 of The Nativity airs tonight at 7pm on BBC1, with parts 2-4 showing from Tuesday to Thursday at the same time

Trailer for BBC1's The Nativity

Mark Goodacre has the news that a trailer for BBC1's The Nativity has gone online at YouTube. The trailer is definitely going for that traditional family feel, and Jordan's soap-operaexpertise is very much to the fore in the snippets of the confrontation between Mary and Joseph. I have to say I really like what I've seen of the annunciation. The Angel Gabriel is really quite unremarkable and naturalistic, which should prevent the programme dating as others that have gone for a more supernatural angle have in the past. This even makes Pasolini's young girl look a little showy. It will be interesting to see whether that opens the door for any of the characters, not to mention the audience, to view this event sceptically.

There's also a piece on this in print edition of the Christmas Edition of The Radio Times with a brief capsule review of each episode available online.

Jim Davila has linked to an article on the programme in yesterday's The Independent. It's by Gerard Gilbert, who was actually an extra in The Jesus Film (1979), and he goes on to discuss a few of the well-known Jesus films, including this witty line on The Passion of the Christ: "At least the actors spoke in subtitled Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, so we didn't have to listen to English being turned into a dead language, as it is in most Jesus films."

Lastly, there a small website on the film courtesy of the Church Media Network.

The Nativity: Broadcasting Dates

Mark Goodacre has the news that Red Planet's website finally has the broadcasting times and dates for the BBC's The Nativity. The four episodes will be screened on BBC1 from Monday 20th to Thursday 23rd December 2010, starting at 7pm. Each episode will be half an hour.

There doesn't seem to be anything new on the BBC's website. Even the Christmas highlights page on the Religion homepage doesn't mention it.

I did come across an article by Peter Graystone of the Church Army who saw the film at a press preview screening in October. He talks about some of the details of the programme, and is incredibly positive about it. Here's a quicjk excerpt:

It is not just moving, it is funny (very), believable (totally), sexy (yes!), tense and profoundly full of the grace of God. And the awe of God too - the writer Tony Jordan has worked a miracle.

I'm hoping to get in touch with someone regarding this film soon, but I've barely had a chance over the last fortnight to try and contact the relevant person.

Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Ten Commandments

I saw the new Chronicles of Narnia film, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, yesterday and my review went up at rejesus this afternoon. I'm always limited to around 500 words which means that I often don't get to make all the points I'd like to in these reviews.

One such point regards the green mist that kidnaps slaves from the Lone Islands never to be seen again. Now this mist isn't itself found in the novel - the book is rather episodic and so would lend itself much more readily to a TV series. It actually seems to be drawn from two elements of the next book - "The Silver Chair". Here the main plot is that Caspian's son has been kidnapped, and later on it emerges he is kept sedated / enchanted by a witch using green mist.

What struck me in watching this device in play was the similarity of the effect with Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 film The Ten Commandments. There a similar looking mist crawls along the ground, only rather than an undisputed force for evil, it's intended to represent God's Angel of Death, only rather than entrapping slaves as it does in Dawn Treader, it is liberating them. The parallel highlights the troubling nature of the text and, as a result on this occasion, DeMille's adaptation.

I don't have much to add to what I said in my review about the link between Aslan and Jesus. The Jesus/Aslan of this film at least is much more the divine figure / Great Lion of faith than the Aslan of history. That's fine, although it doesn't interest me quite so much. The film loses some of the point of the book which is very much about a voyage of faith anyway, although I was pleased to see that the line about Aslan being known by another name in our world remained intact.

There's one final thing to say about this film. After watching it I watched the review of it on Film 2010 starring Claudia Winkleman. She ended with the astonishing statement "We should also warn people... there’s a lot of religious symbolism...". I'm pretty miffed about this in honesty. I get that it's probably a "joke", and I worry that by objecting to it I might end up sounding like Lord Carey, but for goodness sake.

Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode gave her a bit of stick about this today, mainly along the lines of it being such an obvious statement that a CS Lewis film would contain religious symbolism.

For me though, it was the implication that religion is such a bad thing that people need to be warned off it which left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. People are of course entitled to their views (however snarkily phrased) but this programme isn't about discussing religion per se, nor is it about Winkleman's personal opinions.

To be fair she may have been intending to criticise the film for it's heavy handed handling of the religious themes and the lack of subtlety it displays in this regard. I do agree actually agree with this, sort of, although this trait is more down to the book than the film. But if this was her intention then it was expressed most clumsily, which does rather reinforce the low opinion I formed of the show's new approach during the first programme in the series.

Gospel of John:4-6

(From a series os posts looking at Visual Bible's Gospel of John).

Chapter 4 of John's Gospel starts with Jesus taking a short cut through Samaria and his meeting with a Samaritan Woman. It's a fairly rare scene in Jesus films. On the one hand this is a surprise: most films try to up the involvement of women to widen their appeal to both sexes. However, at the same time one of the ways that they do this is to enhance the role of key women (notably the Marys of Nazareth, Magdalene and Bethany) in order to make them into more fully rounded, fleshed out characters. This women is clearly not any of those three. She's not even Jewish.

So whilst it's not the realms of possibility that a filmmaker might try and mix her in with her Mary Magdalene it hasn't happened yet (as far as I can recall at least). Only a handful of films have shown this scene although it does appear in the earliest Jesus film I have seen La Vie du Christ (1899) and its subsequent updates (Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-1905) and Son of Man (1915)). I think its significant that these films were more tableaux than films about people with developed plots.

Since then only the Living Christ Series and Il Messia have covered this story aside from the Gospel of John. It's disappointing then that this scene is relatively poor. Perhaps its just me, but I don't find the actress playing the Samaritan to be at all convincing. She seems fairly at ease with her state in life (whereas I think she would be far more broken), she looks Jesus in the eye, and whilst there is a hint of flirtatiousness there's little to connect her to her past. Even the way she runs through the disciples rather than around them suggests confidence.

One of the differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics (only Matt and Luke in this case) is that whereas they have a centurion asking Jesus to heal his servant, John has a basilikos (translated variously as courtier / royal official / nobleman). Given that this occurrence happens in Cana, Galilee (Capernaum in Matt/Luke) it seems likely that a courtier would be from Herod's court, rather than a Roman. Yet here, either sub-consciously or in a deliberate attempt to harmonise John with Matthew and Luke, the official comes in the garb of a Roman soldier.

I've commented on the this film's portrayal of the healing at the pool before, and I've nothing more to add this time around. What follows is a confrontation with the Jewish authorities (as the Good News translation, and therefore this film, has it). This ends in the shot above which is meant to be artful, but ends up feeling rather contrived. I am interested however in the contrasting use of black and white clothing for Jesus' opponents. I've been noticing recently how often Jesus' opponents wear black - which certainly goes a way to suggesting that they are the "bad guys", and therefore is rather unhelpful. Is this, then, an attempt to restore some balance, or a way of showing that Judaism was actually rather diverse at this point with different parties with strongly opposing views? For most of the rest of the film the Jewish authorities wear black, but this perhaps ties in with the opening title card explaining that the gospel perhaps exaggerates / invents some of the enmity that existed. By depicting these opponents in such a caricatured fashion it encourages the audience to take the extent of their opposition less seriously.

I quite like the portrayal of the feeding of the five thousand here, barring the moment when everyone all gets up at once, which is a little unconvincing. But the lack of fanfare surrounding the miracle itself is a nice piece of understatement.

Rather more showy is the scene of Jesus walking on water. This film is now 7 years old, but it holds up reasonably well. Of course we know that some of this was done with a blue screen, and other bits are done in a water tank, but it works reasonably well.

Gospel of John:1-3

(From a series of posts looking at Visual Bible's Gospel of John)
Having worked my way through all of Visual Bible's Matthew and half of the Genesis Project / New Media Bible's Luke the group I lead is now on to John and so I'm going to work through the Visual Bible's Gospel of John in a similar fashion.

The first thing I notice is that John is very much a step up in terms of quality. Christopher Plummer is a better narrator than Richard Kiley, widescreen is better than 4:3 and just the quality of the filmstock and sets makes this a better viewing experience. The script is less adaptable however, and I suspect that will start to grate sooner or later.

A couple of observations on the first couple of chapters. Firstly, John is the only gospel where Jesus isn't baptised (or at least John doesn't tell us about it), but the film puts in in anyway, as a flashback as John the Baptist is speaking.

Secondly, the clearing of the temple scene is really good here. Whilst I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of a Jesus quite as angry as this one (particularly as it's not really clear why) this is pretty much the only film to depict this scene plausibly in my opinion.

Lastly, it always seems strange to me that Jesus doesn't get to deliver the immortal :) words of John 3:16. Plummer gets these, but I'd always thought (perhaps wrongly given some modern translations) that these are words spoken by Jesus rather than the author. I might have to look into that one.

Biblical Studies Carnival: Nov. 2010

Photo by Tim Parkinson, used under a Creative Commons Licence

Never quite got around to posting the link to last month's Biblical Studies Carnival and now November's is upon us. (I never know whether they should be named after the month which they review or the month when they are published. Ever since they went on a temporary hiatus the numbers seemed to have stopped!). Deane Galbraith has compiled a very thorough summary of the month's news including some coverage of the SBL Conference. Thanks to him for all his work.

In a twist to the usual procedure he has also compiled a top 30 list of Biblioblogs based on quality rather than traffic. (And no, I don't make that one either...)

The Albert Schweitzer Movie

Not many historical Jesus scholars have had films made about them, in fact biblical scholars generally tend to live lives that offer little to Hollywood screen writers (though Raphael Golb may prove to be an exception). So I was surprised to find that last year there was a film made about Albert Schweitzer. True it seems to be about the period of his life after he wrote "The Quest for the Historical Jesus", but nevertheless I can't think of many others. I know one of the enemies in Star Trek was called the (Marcus?) Borg...

Interestingly, it features a handful from Jesus films. Schweitzer is played by Jeroen Krabbé who played Satan in Jesus (1999), Barbara Hershey plays Schweitzer's wife here having, of course, played Jesus' wife (Mary Magdalene) in Last Temptation of Christ and then Samuel West played King Caspian in the BBC edition of Voyage of the Dawn Treader (not actually a Bible film, but topical so I'll toss it out there anyway).

Has anyone seen it? It doesn't look like the greatest way to spend 114 minutes, particularly as his ground-breaking book is unlikely to feature. Still, will they be making films about Jim West in the years to come? I rather suspect not.

Bulk Buy Marchiano's "Jesus, Yesterday, Today and Forever"

I should really have posted this when I first got it, but it's been a little busy recently (I know I always say that!). Anyway Marchiano Ministries are selling boxes of 24 copies of Bruce Marchiano's coffee table book "Jesus, Yesterday, Today and Forever" for just $49 including P&P, which works out as a little over $2 per book (or 78¢ if you exclude the seemingly arbitrary amount for P&P).

The book is 112 pages of images from the Visual Bible's Gospel of Matthew which I discussed in some detail a couple of months back.

The offer runs out on Friday, so anyone who is interested needs to get their skates on. Cheques to Marchiano Ministries, 11333 Moorpark St. 171, North Hollywood, CA 91602 or email marchiano.ministries@gmail.com.

Pasolini the Wheat and the Chaff

I've just been writing a piece for The Reader magazine on the political aspects of Pasolini's Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo. I'll hopefully post that article here in time, but for now just one observation that I picked up watching bits of it tonight.

The observation comes in part from thinking about Pasolini's politics and part from reading Mark Goodacre's thoughts on Matthean phrases that occur in the double tradition. Anyway, throughout Matthew the harvesting imagery is fairly prevalent. So it was interesting to notice that as Jesus leaves the wilderness, the first people he encounters (albeit passing them in the field) are a group of men with winnowing forks separating the wheat from the chaff (c.f. 3:12). This is to be a key theme in the ministry of Jesus the film portrays.

On a related note, last month the Guardian did a number of Top 25 film lists, and this film ranked number 10 in the Top 25 Arthouse Films and, as a result, got a new write up by Andrew Pulver. It's a good summary though I must admit I prefer Derek Malcolm's review for the same paper from ten years ago.

More on The Nativity (BBC)

The BBC have just released their press pack for next month's The Nativity. There are still no dates for the broadcasts, although in the interview for the press pack writer Tony Jordan says it will play in prime time the week before Christmas. There are also interviews with Tatiana Maslany (Mary) and Andrew Buchan (Joseph), as well as Al Weaver who plays Thomas the Shepherd.

I've written a piece previewing this production for rejesus.co.uk and there was a brief mention of it in Monday's Daily Telegraph. Christianity.org.uk has a couple of extra photos, including one of Peter Capaldi.

Thoughts on the Synoptic Problem

As regular readers will know, I teach a course which tackles a different book of the Bible in order each month. The last three months have seen us discuss Matthew, Mark and Luke a key part of which has been the Synoptic Problem. It actually works fairly neatly. In the first session I introduced the idea of the Synoptic Problem without going into solutions, and we looked at how Matthew might have adapted and added to Mark. The next session enabled us to go into the two main options over which book came first, and I put the case as to why I believed in Markan Priority. The final session, therefore, allowed me to go into the last stage of the problem, and the existence of Q.

One of the things Mark Goodacre dislikes is the way many people give their solution to the Synoptic Problem (usually Markan Priority and Q) before ever presenting the evidence around it. Since I agree with Mark's principle, I thought it was important to present the questions around the double tradition as neutrally as possible (whilst still, ultimately, giving my own opinion). What this led me to, however, was the realisation that there are actually three possible explanations to the double tradition (assuming one accepts Markan Priority as we had established last time).

The most well known of these is that Matthew and Luke worked independently using a now lost source (Q). Goodacre also argues for the possibility that Luke knew and used Matthew. But, theoretically at least, there's a third possibility: that Luke was written first and Matthew used it as a source. What surprising is that not only does no-one appear to believe in this option, no-one even gives it any consideration. Indeed in trying to draw up a list of arguments for and against, I had to devise/derive them all myself. That in itself, is obviously one argument against, but I also managed to come up with some more based on the texts than scholarly consensus.

I came up with two main types of argument "for" the idea that Matthew used Luke. The first are those that are also used to support Luke's use of Matthew. So into this camp fall arguments for simplicity, lack of evidence from church tradition for Q and the major (Mark-Q overlaps) and minor agreements.

The second group were harder to come up with as I couldn't just borrow them as I had done with the first type. One of the arguments here is the idea that Luke is more primitive than Matthew. In honesty, I offered this one with the large caveat that I was only aware of a couple of prominent examples ("Blessed are the poor in spirit" and "Our Father in Heaven") and had no idea how representative they were of the differences between Matthew and Luke in General. But if Farrer theorists can argue away the "alternating primitivity" argument from their side , then it was possible that the same might be ture from this side. The next argument was that Matthew's theology is more developed than Luke's. The example I cited was the church discourse in Matthew 18, but a case could also be made for the apologetics we find after the resurrection, not to mention the corpses raised from the dead at the point of Jesus' death. Lastly I argued that since Matthew's structure was the most developed (5 key discourses mirroring the Torah) that this also would support the theory that Matthew wrote last.

When it came to the arguments "against" I could only find two (aside from critical unanimity against), but they were fairly decisive. Firstly, the fact that Luke is almost never the middle term in the triple tradition. Most of the time its Mark. Not infrequently it's Matthew. It's almost never Luke, which is not what we'd expect if Matthew had used Luke.

The second main argument is that of editorial fatigue. When one double tradition author tries to adapt the other but lapses back into the original wording it's always Luke failing to coherently adapt Matthew, never the other way around (despite frequent instances of editorial fatigue when Matthew is using Mark). That said, there are relatively few examples here (at least that are cited in Mark Goodacre's paper), and even then not all of them are convincing. (In the case of Matt 13:16-17 / Luke 10:23-24, whilst given the broader trend of Matthew to Luke this seems the most feasible option, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Matthew was tidying up Luke rather than vice versa).

Having done the session on Monday I returned to the question of the minor agreements as I had argued that fairly poorly (having forgotten some of the details) and did, in fact, uncover an argument against from another piece by Mark Goodacre. Here he argues that the language used is so typically Matthean in certain passages of the double tradition that it's hard to ascribe it to anything other than Luke using Matthew.

Ultimately, I still hold to the Farrer theory, but it seems strange that there is so little material exploring the possibilities in the direction of Matthew's use of Luke. Does anyone have any others, for or against?

One other point I wanted to raise, apt for this time of year, was regarding Luke supposedly erroneous citation of Quirinius's census. I didn't research this thoroughly at all, but in the main it seemed to be taken as read that because Josephus disagreed it was taken that Luke was wrong. I wanted to ask, are there any other sources for this verifying Josephus, and if not why is it so widely accepted that he is right? Can anyone help me with this? Even most of the conservative arguments defending Luke seem to accept that Josephus is right, resorting to arguments over the precise wording to defend Luke.

Warner Bros. to Make Moses

Over at Arts and Faith, Peter Chattaway has linked to news from NYmag.com about two new Moses films in production by major studios. I reported on Fox's plans for a 300-style Moses film last year, and the NYmag piece doesn't really add much to what was known then.

However, the Warner Bros. project, is something that neither Peter nor I had heard of before, and seems to have a reasonably strong team behind it. Dan Lin (The Departed) and Matti Leshem are going to be producing the movie and British screenwriter Stuart Hazeldine and US writer Michael Green (Heroes) are said to be supplying the script any minute now.

There are a few more articles on this story available via this IMDb page, but I doubt any of them beat NYmag's headline. First-class pun-ditry.

Genesis Project: Luke Ch.1-4

Having worked through Matthew's gospel a couple of months ago with the Visual Bible series, I've now moved onto Luke. (Last month was Mark for which there is no word for word version). I'm not going to have the time to write on this one as extensively as Matthew, so this will be in four or so parts (one per video cassette) rather than 14.

The story behind this film is rather complicated, and the signs of this complexity are most obvious in these opening chapters. Back in 1974 John Heyman founded the Genesis Project, also known as the New Media Bible (not in the sense New Media means today). He wanted to film the entire Bible, and began work in 1976, but only got as far as making chapters 1 and 2 of Luke before he realised he was going to need a lot more money. So Heyman decided to team up with Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ. Bright and his organisation would help fund Heyman's project and in return he'd make them a shorter Jesus film that could be used as an evangelistic tool. The film was to become known as The Jesus Film and it was released in 1979. Heyman figured the film would help promote his project as well as fund it. John Dart has written a more detailed account on the back story to this project and that film, and there's a 2003 thread at Arts and Faith where Peter Chattaway and I discuss how the two projects relate.

What's strange is that the two productions have different nativity scenes. By the time the movie came to being released, the films of the first couple of chapters of Luke had been around for three years. In the meantime the actress that played Mary was now unavailable and Heyman decided not to use the new footage to spruce up the start of the word-for-word film.

The series starts with Luke on a hill reading from a scroll. We get an establishing shot of Zechariah and Elizabeth so we know who he is in the following scene at the temple. Both Zechariah and Mary are visited by an angel with a big afro-style hair cut. This is shot quite effectively with the light behind him in order to give the impression of a halo.

One of the curious aspects of this film is that, in contrast to the later Visual Bible film, it appears to be entirely narrated. What's even more unusual is that we can here that the film also features a background track in Aramaic. So Mel Gibson was not exactly breaking new ground by using Aramaic in The Passion of the Christ despite what some people claimed at the time.

These comments aren't so much a formal review as just some extended notes on the film as I watch it, so I'll just chuck in a minor observation here that when Jesus is presented in the temple and meets Simeon and Anna, we also see Zechariah. This links nicely to the next scene where Zechariah's son, a particularly scraggly John the Baptist, in baptising people in the River Jordan. We see Jesus baptised, and an actual dove land on his shoulder. According to Brian Deacon (Jesus) this scene was horrendous to film as it involved him standing in cold water for hours whilst they tried to entice the dove to land on his bird-seed covered shoulder. That anecdote however does serve to highlight a subtle change that Luke makes to Mark (and Matthew's text). Whilst in all three gospels the dove is only a simile - the Holy Spirit descends "as a dove" - only Luke stresses that this happens "in bodily form". In the other three gospels the implication is that this is imagery, rather than an actual bird.

One of the biggest hurdles in filming Luke is the genealogy. True it's not as potentially problematic as in Matthew, where it's right at the beginning and so likely to scare some people off before they even get started. Nevertheless it's very easy to make such a scene deathly boring. What Heyman and Sykes do is narrate the list of Jesus' ancestors over an action shot of him walking. In contrast to the Visual Bible version only rarely do we see "Luke" and as this is our first introduction to Jesus and he is almost marching through a rugged terrain, it's actually fairly engaging.

Jesus' destination is the desert where he will be tempted. The devil is represented by a snake, which, it could be argued, is perhaps the best physical approach to portraying Satan in a Jesus film. It's not time bound, or so open to interpretation as many other approaches. That said I don't think I can recall a film which portrays this as all being in Jesus' mind, although Scorsese's take might be interpreted that way. The latter two temptations are depited by frosting in an inset of relevant images. It turns out that these are actually taken from the model of Jerusalem and the temple from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. As I've been using the stills of this model found at the IMJ's website it was strange to see the model pop up so obviously in the film. It's a good way of making this sequence more interesting at a very low cost however.

One of the best scenes in the Jesus film also occurs in these opening four chapters: Jesus delivering his gospel manifesto and his resulting rejection at Nazareth. I made some comments on this scene a few weeks back which I'll reproduce here for ease:

This film is an adaptation of Luke so it's not surprising to find that it's the one that most closely corresponds to that gospel. We see Jesus sitting on the floor and covering his head and kissing the scriptures before reading them. The wording here is pretty much as per the gospel. It even includes Jesus being brought to the cliff edge though whilst the narrator describes Jesus walking through the middle of the crowd we only see him walk away from them.

This film differs however in one crucial way. Whereas in the Jesus film an audience member links Jesus' words with a claim to be the messiah, in this production no such claim is made. The narrator sticks to the text which, in fact, doesn't link Jesus' declaration to a claim to be the messiah . In the text, Jesus causes an uproar not because of any messianic claim, but because he anticipates his rejection by the Nazarenes (and, by implication, the Jewish people in general) and predicts God working amongst the Gentiles instead.

The tape ends at the end of chapter 4 with the healings of a demon-possessed man, Simon Peter's mother-in-law and the crowds that come to Jesus when words of these miracles gets around.

(This production is only available on VHS, and it's pretty rare, although there is one copy for sale at jesusonscreen.com).

Death of Dino De Laurentiis

I was sorry to hear of the death of Dino De Laurentiis, producer of Barabbas, La Biblia and a few other minor Bible films. It was only last year that I reported on the celebrations for his 90th birthday.

De Laurentiis produces over 160 films including the Hannibal series, Conan the Barbarian, Flash Gordon and Fellini's La Strada, but I will remember him for The Bible: In the Beginning. It was a pivotal Bible film for me and one which contains some of the best ever scenes from Bible films.

Comparison: Good Samaritan

Last week I looked at various Jesus film portrayals of Jesus' Gospel Manifesto from Luke 4, as part of trying to find a suitable clip for a session on Luke I'm taking. I also want to include a clip of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, so I thought I add a few notes here as well (times indicate the point at which the relevant clip begins).

Kings of Kings (1961) - 1:28:20
Whilst Ray's Jesus is one who speaks about "peace, love and the brotherhood of man", the story part of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is missing. All that is left if the question "I'm a camel driver, who can I call my neighbour?" and Jesus' answer "He to whom you show mercy and compassion, whether you know him or not. This is all part of the Sermon on the Mount scene.

Godspell (1973) - 35:08
One of Godspell's strengths is the way it creatively re-tells the parables, reflecting the fact that when Jesus first spoke them there was a freshness and vitality about them. Here the Godspell trope act out the story with their hands. There's a slight change to the characters here, We get a priest, a judge along with the Samaritan, rather than a priest and a Levite. Curiously however there's a suggestion that the Samaritan is drunk.

At the end of the parable, the Samaritan is then hoisted onto someone's shoulders and paraded along until Jesus interjects with Matt 6:2-5 ("So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...").

Il Messia (1975)
This is the only film to show Jesus telling the parable in standard fashion. In fact it's a fairly unremarkable sequence, in keeping with the off-hand way Rossellini has Jesus deliver much of his teaching. Sorry I didn't note down the starting time for this one.

Jesus (1979) - 60:48This was, for me, the most memorable moment. Initially we see Jesus being questioned as per Luke, but then there's a watery dissolve into a dramatised version of the story. It's wordless, accompanied instead by a incredibly memorable little jingle, before we dissolve back to Jesus and the crowd. A couple of points here. Firstly, all three of those who approach the beaten man do within a very short period of time. This keeps the story brief, but it does rather let the first two off the hook to a small extent. The road looks busy, so the hurrying by looks less like desertion and dereliction of duty than it looks like simply leaving it to someone else. Secondly, here it's a woman who asks Jesus the initial question rather than an expert in the law which makes the scene softer and less confrontational. Likewise it's a young girl, not the original questioner, who answers Jesus' closing question, leading Jesus into "suffer the little children" passage.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
This version has Mary telling Jesus the story as a boy in keeping with the high view of Mary the film has. Jesus ends by asking "so the Samaritan was good?" to which Mary, rather curiously replies "yes, even though he was a Samaritan". The scene following this one links in, showing Jesus getting beaten up by a group of boys but refusing to fight back.

Miracle Maker (2000) - 45:50
This is one of the sections in this puppet animated film that switches to 2D, hand drawn animation, and it's done in a rather angular spiky style, which might actually be quite scary to younger children. It also explains some of the cultural reference points such as how the priest believed it made him unclean to touch a dead body, the Jewish people's hatred of the Samaritans (even showing one the children shouting out that he hates them). In the context of the film this is probably my favourite portrayal, but for a free-standing clip I don't think it would work so well.

So none of these are ideal really. What I probably will do instead is show the Mitchell and Webb version of the story, which never fails to amuse me, and ties in somewhat with Mary's response in Mary, Mother of Jesus

Book Review: Exodus And Leviticus for Everyone

Exodus and Leviticus for Everyone
John Goldingay

Paperback: 208 pages
Publisher: SPCK Publishing (21 Oct 2010)
Language: English

ISBN-10: 0281061262
ISBN-13: 978-0281061266

Tom Wright’s New Testament "...for Everyone" series of Bible commentaries have proved to be very popular, so it was only a matter of time before someone decided to try the same approach for the books of the Hebrew Bible. Step forward John Goldingay, professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in the US and former principal of St. John’s College Nottingham (UK).

Having dealt with the first sixteen chapters of Genesis in volume 1, Goldingay, along with SPCK - who are also the publishers of the Wright series - have moved onto Exodus and Leviticus for the second volume. Part 3 - Numbers and Deuteronomy - is due out in the UK later this month.

As the series’ title suggests, its aim is to give an overview of the books that is accessible to all-comers. Like Wright’s series, and William Barclay’s similar series from the middle of last century, Goldingay offers his own translation of each passage before attempting to summarise it, typically offering personal anecdotes to enlighten often obscure parts of the Old Testament. Some of these stories work better than others. At times the links are a little too tenuous, or require such a deal of explanation that the advantage gained is fairly minimal. That said, they did draw me into the explanations that were to follow, and give me a greater appreciation of the author and his life.

Goldingay’s translation, on the other hand, sustains a real freshness throughout. I don’t know a word of Hebrew, so I can’t vouch for the legitimacy of his choices, but they are often bold, causing certain nuances to leap out. Part of this is because such a large proportion of popular translations are essentially re-workings of the King James Version, but even the choices made in translating individual words give a new angle on familiar passages. It’s a shame that not all of the text is translated - often one part of a passage is translated whilst the other is merely summarised - but this is understandable given the nature of the project, and the length of the Old Testament relative to the New.

The difficulty in housing Exodus and Leviticus under one introductory roof is that typically most people are far more familiar with the former than the latter. In particular, many of this book’s target audience will have grown up with the stories of Moses and the exodus from Egypt. It’s difficult therefore to provide an introduction to Exodus which is consistently both accessible and informative. Most readers turn to commentaries seeking fresh insights, and whilst I recognise that Exodus is one of the books I have studied in more depth, I think the average church-goer, at least, will have heard much of this in one forum or another. Whether this is his failure, or merely a small flaw in what is a strong concept overall, I remain unsure.

Leviticus however is entirely another matter. Here, and to a lesser extent in the later chapters of Exodus, Goldingay’s work is excellent, managing to explain one of the Bible’s most impenetrable books in a way that makes it seem fresh, accessible, and, dare I say it, fascinating. Time and time again I came away feeling that I had gained a whole new perspective on the book and it’s implications for today. I’ve only dipped into commentaries on Leviticus before, but I feel I would recommend Goldingay’s work here to all but the most seasoned Torah-expert. Given that the average Christian gives a wider berth to the majority of the Hebrew Bible than a fictional Levite on the Jericho to Jerusalem road might give to a heavily beaten man, the outlook for the rest of the series looks promising.

That said, one of the problems with working through the Old Testament in order, particularly for a series that aspires to being wide reaching, is that the first few books contain a number of hurdles that risk alienating large swathes of readers. Genesis is the first - your take on creation will often cause some readers not to progress. This second entry in the series again it comes into contact with a number of controversial texts: how will the author handle God’s violence against the Egyptians in Exodus or the verses often cited from Leviticus as being anti-homosexuality?

On the first, Goldingay seems a little troubled by Exodus’ anticipation of the conquest of Canaan, covering the issue in his section on Ex. 23:20-33, but ultimately he’s seemingly content to accept the text’s reasoning. But the anti-homosexuality verses (18:22 and 20:13) are passed over. It’s possible to infer Goldingay’s take on the issue from his careful explanation of how similar passages function, but not to dealing with this issue specifically is an error. Whilst it’s no more than a passing reference as far as Leviticus is confirmed, in our culture this is Leviticus’ most well known / discussed verse (as any search engine will quickly confirm). To ignore these verses in a commentary aimed at the average person on the street is undoubtedly something of an oversight.

Another omission that will surprise many experts on the Hebrew Bible is the absence of a detailed discussion of the documentary hypothesis and the hypothetical sources behind the text. Goldingay makes a number of passing references to there being various sources behind Exodus, particularly when there seems to be some kind of conflict between them, but he avoids mentioning JEDP, Graf-Wellhausen or redactors. Whilst this is unusual, I think it’s the right call. Opinion on the sources behind the Pentateuch have become so diverse over the last century that there is very little consensus. Indeed many of Goldingay’s target audience will come from backgrounds where it is still widely agreed that Moses wrote the Torah almost single-handedly. To wade into such a complex issue would risk alienating many of the “Everyone”s who might choose to read the book. It could be argued that at least mentioning J, E, D and P might be useful, but again, if there’s to be no specific analysis of those sources, then simply explaining that there different sources seems a wise approach.

Goldingay’s approach to this issue typifies the way that the book consistently pitches things at the right level. Whilst this arguably leaves the Exodus section of his commentary seeming a little pedestrian, it results in a superb and insightful explanation of Leviticus, and the translation means that even without the commentary more seasoned students of these two books will find plenty to chew on.

'Jesus Christ, Superstar' at 40

This week's The Culture Show on BBC2 featured a short piece on the 40th anniversary of the release of the original 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' album. Such was the popularity of Rice and Lloyd Webber's concept album it was only 3 years until it was adapted for the film. The programme includes an interview with Rice and Lloyd Webber as well as a closer look at the artists involved in the original recording including a few excerpts from Murray Head (Judas).

Viewers in the UK can catch the show on iPlayer. Everyone else will have to satisfy themselves with listening to the original album on Spotify's smarter younger brother, we7.

Audio Interview on The Nativity

On Thursday I picked up on a post from Mark Goodacre about a soon to air programme from the BBC, The Nativity.

I got an email shortly afterwards from Raspberry Rabbit and an anonymous comment telling me towards an interview with the series' writer Tony Jordan from this year's Churches Media Conference. You can listen to the mp3 at Raspberry Rabbit's blog. Thanks to both of them for pointing me towards it.

This seems to be exactly the same forum that Nigel Stafford-Clark was interviewed at in 2007 in the run up to the BBC's The Passion. This is further evidence to support Mark's theory that this production will be very similar to that one.

News on BBC's The Nativity

Mark Goodacre has just unearthed news of a new BBC drama called The Nativity which will (presumably) be going out this Christmas. I'm a little surprised not to have heard anything about this before. Mark links to a BBC press release from April which was quickly picked up by both The Telegraph and The Guardian and, of course, the BBC's own website.

Top billing seems to be going to The Thick of it/In the Loop's Peter Capaldi who will play one of the wise men (Balthazar). Quite how much screen time Capaldi will get remains to be seen. The programme, which will be shown in four parts, will "focus on the love story between Mary and Joseph and their 'emotional turmoil' over her pregnancy".¹ I can't help but think that, come the broadcast, I might find myself hoping that the wise men will get sufficiently lost to enable Balthazar to really lose it. But in all seriousness a more restrained performance is probably what he needs right now.

Other actors include Art Malik as Nicolaus, Andrew Buchan as Joseph, Tatiana Maslany as Mary, and Vincent Regan as Herod. I've long been a fan of Malik's and thought he would be well suited to a role in a Jesus film. 2010 has obviously been his year for that: he also features in this year's Ben Hur. Buchan was good value in Cranford and I suspect he'll be a good, if a little traditional, Joseph. I thought Maslany and Regan were both new to me, but Maslany provided a voice in Eastern Promises and Regan has good epic-film form having had smaller parts in Troy, 300, Jeremiah, Clash of the Titans and Joan of Arc/The Messenger.

The Nativity has been written by former Eastenders writer Tony Jordan. Three years ago Jordan revealed, in an interview with The Guardian that he'd been working on the script for two years, which means that it's been a five year project for him. Stark contrast with Mike Rich who penned the script for The Nativity Story in just 6 weeks (although had researched it for a year before hand)². Jordan's Red Planet Pictures are producing and there are a few pictures showing there on their page on the programme.The first photograph here appeals to me more than the second. The blue dress gives a strong nod to tradition, but a weaker nod to historical probability. I think I prefer the grittier approach to the material as found in the earlier parts of The Nativity Story. Mind you all that had evaporated by the time baby Jesus arrived so it's not a fair comparison, and this is just a publicity shot, so I'll withold judgement until I've actually seen it, particularly given so many of the other quotations surrounding the film seem so positive.

All in all it seems that this film will be something of a prequel to the BBC's The Passion (2008). Certainly more in that direction that The Liverpool Nativity from 2007. Hopefully I'll be able to find out a bit more about this over the next few weeks. Roll on Christmas.

Comparison:Jesus Gospel Manifesto

I want to use a clip to illustrate Luke's portrayal of Jesus' rejection in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30). Luke is the only gospel to depict Jesus reading a particularly apt text from Isaiah which narrows my focus somewhat. Whilst a few more versions of this episode are out there I'm going to focus on those below as the quality of the other films overall is too poor to make them a serious possibility. So these are those listed in Staley and Walsh from which I will also cite start times and chapters in brackets (Region 1). The unbracketed timings are my own (Region 2). I've excluded Pasolini and Saville's films here as they are based on the accounts in Matthew and John respectively. I've also included the scene from Mary, Mother of Jesus which is not included in Staley and Walsh's book.

Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
From 1:33:30 (1:36:51)
Instead if shooting this scene from inside a synagogue, Stevens films out in the open air, next to a pool where a number of people have gathered. There are quotes from all 4 gospels, but particularly John (e.g. 10:24), and the critical quotations from Luke. When the confrontation is over Jesus walks away with his back to the camera and we see someone throw a stone at him that hits him squarely on the back

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)
From episode 2 10:33 (1:43:00)
This takes the scene almost directly from Luke alone. There are a few dramatic flourishes, but the location of this clip (right at the start of Jesus' adult ministry) and its inclusion of the fulfilled OT prophecy both suggest Luke. After Jesus has made his statement, Mary repeats the key phrase "today in our hearing the scriptures are fulfilled". We also see Jesus being ejected from the temple and there's a similar shot of Jesus' back as was found in Greatest Story. This time however no stone is actually thrown. This is certainly the version that came to mind when I started thinking of portrayals of it and so I may well use this one.

Jesus (1979)
From 13:00(0:15:11)
This film is an adaptation of Luke so it's not surprising to find that it's the one that most closely corresponds to that gospel. We see Jesus sitting on the floor and covering his head and kissing the scriptures before reading them. The wording here is pretty much as per the gospel. It even includes Jesus being brought to the cliff edge though whilst the narrator describes Jesus walking through the middle of the crowd we only see him walk away from them.

Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999)
From 0:56:55
This film is usually pretty dreadful, but Bale is capable of turning any scene into something memorable so I thought this might be worth a try. And so it turned out. There's a bit of an underemphasis on the words Jesus speaks, but a few nice touches. For example, as Jesus is reading from the scroll another man moves a pointer along the text to help him keep his place. When Jesus begins to close the scroll in the middle of a section the man gives Jesus a shocked look. The confrontation that ensues goes on quite a bit, but it's still a fairly good scene. There's also a visual nod to Jesus of Nazareth as we see Jesus in the synagogue from behind the screen that separated off the women.

Overall it's interesting that other than Greatest Story all these portrayals are keen to show Jewish customs relating to synagogues. All 3 of these other films also join up the dots for the audience by explaining that Jesus was claiming to be the messiah.