Understanding Caiaphas -- The Bible Series

The Bible series continues on History Channel tonight and introduces, among others, the character of Caiaphas.  The character of Caiaphas presents one of the greatest challenges for any Jesus film or Passion play, and many have failed the test, making Caiaphas a cartoon, caricature baddie who makes no historical sense and who is offensive to boot.

There are, however, exceptions.  When I consulted on The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008), I was delighted to find that Frank Deasy, the writer, and Nigel Stafford-Clark, the producer, were eager to make all the characters in the drama understandable, even sympathetic.  This is Frank Deasy discussing how he wrote Caiaphas:




One of the elements that I found so admirable in Deasy's script was the idea of giving Caiaphas a family, a wife and daughters, and allowing us to see something of his life.  Ben Daniels himself reflects on the role in a BBC video interview here.

The Bible series is in the same tradition.  Although it cannot give as much screen time to Caiaphas as something like The Passion, it still works hard to try to understand the character and the historical context.  I know that Helen Bond's book Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville: Westiminster John Knox, 2004) was used by the production team in order to help them to understand and so to write the character, and Helen herself was one of the consultants on the series.  (For those not familiar with Helen's work, a great place to begin is her online piece Joseph Caiaphas: In Search of a Shadow).

Caiaphas in The Bible is played by Adrian Schiller, one of several Doctor Who alumni to appear in the series.  Schiller played Uncle in the magnificent 2011 episode The Doctor's Wife, penned by Neil Gaiman.  You can see him interviewed about playing Caiaphas, with several clips, here:





Schiller shows a fine understanding of the historical issues here, with the crowds that would have been in Jerusalem at Passover.  A couple of quotations:

"There is no reason to think that he was anything other than utterly sincere in his beliefs and his adherence to his religion . . . .

Well, the challenge I wanted to meet was to present a reasonable man, an intelligent man, a man with a problem. And I hope that people watching the series will be sympathetic to difficulties he was faced with.

Simply because the influence of these stories is so enormous and so widespread, it's important people know more of the detail, whatever your views about religion or God or morality. You can't ignore these books, so don't!"

Here is the preview for tonight's episode:





Oh, and Doctor Who fans should also look out for Paul Marc Davis, the Trickster from the Sarah Jane Adventures (and Chieftain in Doctor Who episode "Utopia"); he plays Simon in The Bible.

The Bible Series: The Consultants' Role

I have been blogging off and on for a few weeks on the forthcoming History Channel series, The Bible, which begins airing in the USA tonight, 8/7C.  There are ten episodes and two are broadcast each week, culminating with the final two on Easter Day, 31 March.  There are now tons of video clips available, but here's one of my favourites, a nice montage of scenes set to The Script's "Hall of Fame":

One of the reason for scholarly types to be encouraged is that the executive producers, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, did hire a large group of academic consultants.  The group is so large that I must admit that I don't know everyone who was involved, but I can confirm that I was involved, and so were  Helen Bond, Craig Evans, Joshua Garroway, Paula Gooder and Candida Moss.

Garroway comments on his experiences as a consultant in an article on CNN's Belief Blog:

Another consultant was Rabbi Joshua Garroway, an assistant professor at the Hebrew Union College and an expert on early Christianity and the Second Jewish commonwealth (circa 530 B.C. to 70 A.D.) Judaism. He was a paid consultant on the project.

“One of the issues that came up frequently in the comments was the goal of the production was to remain faithful, or at least as faithful as possible, to the narrative and text of the Bible, as opposed to a historical critical approach,” he said.

“The series is not meant to be a historical feature but as a representation of the biblical narrative which is at times historical and at times not,” Garroway said.

One reason Garroway thought he was brought in was because in parts of the New Testament, “there are less than generous depictions of Jews, Jewish leaders and Jewish traditions.”

One of several Jewish scholars involved, his role as a New Testament scholar was to help the production stay faithful to the text but also “diminish as much as possible scenes or statements that could be construed as overly negative toward Jews and Jewish judgment.”

While he thinks the project has an overall Christian orientation, “I think they did well.”

“I don’t think it will run into the same problems that Mel Gibson’s movie ("The Passion of the Christ") did because the producers have been somewhat conscientious about forestalling some of the things that could produce that effect in the Jewish community,” he said, referring to perceptions of anti-Semitism from the 2004 film.

Craig Evans comments in an article in the Herald:

Craig Evans, professor of New Testament studies at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, was one of about 40 consultants and faith leaders recruited from around the world to ensure the show’s historical and scriptural accuracy.

“We have loved our relationship with Craig,” said Downey, adding that the well-known scholar and his wife became close friends as Evans guided the New Testament parts of the project with his “expertise and love of Scripture. … He’s been a great blessing.”

Evans’s task involved reading and re-reading the script, initially to correct mistakes and then to examine dialogue and the authentic representation of the culture and history of the Middle East in New Testament times.

“This was a challenge,” said Evans, who has previously consulted for National Geographic documentaries, among other projects. “How do you work it all into a movie?”

And I talked to the Huffington Post about the project the other day:

Mark Goodacre, a New Testament scholar at Duke University who was one of several academics who consulted on Downey and Burnett's script, said there are bound to be questions of interpretation, accuracy and “what's included and not included” in any Bible adaptation.

“We tried to make sure things held together historically, but in any adaptation that's a compelling drama you have to draw lines and make connections through dialogue, scenes and narrative,” said Goodacre, who noted the series relies on a mix of Biblical translations with dialogue that appeals to modern viewers.

“You don't want people talking King James English, but there are recognizable lines and, of course, iconic places," he said. "But [Downey and Burnett] are also not afraid to provide some linking pieces and do things that are not direct. It's very naturally done.”

Broadly speaking, the role of the consultants began back in 2011 when planning on the series was beginning.  I first met the producers in Greenwich, London, in July that year.  Our main role was to look at scripts as they were produced and to offer comments, but also to answer emails and phone-calls, and to advise on details in the scripts from the scholar's perspective.

Last year, in the autumn, we got to view early cuts of the episodes and once again to offer comments, and to draw attention to anything we thought required special attention.  It was a fascinating experience because it gave you an insight into the world of TV production to see the partially finished episodes, and to watch things coming together.  I had the same experience watching these early edits that I had when watching the BBC / HBO Passion in 2008 -- it's a profoundly moving experience to see scripts with which one has become very familiar now becoming reality.  And although these were early edits, and one watched them out of sequence, I have to say that I was not disappointed.  It's a superb series.

The consultant's role is always, inevitably, a very minor role in something like this.  The producers themselves are the ones calling the shots, and they don't need to talk to people like us at all.  And it must be frustrating for them to be talking to people like us who really don't know anything about film-making.  But it's greatly to their credit that they were willing to spend so much time asking the views of academics and taking their views seriously, and I was impressed throughout the experience with the time they took to listen to all the little suggestions we had.

More Bible Series News and Video Clips

It's been a week or two since I've posted anything on the forthcoming History Channel Series The Bible, executive produced by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey.  I and several others (including Helen Bond, Paula Gooder, Candida Moss and Craig Evans) acted as academic consultants on the series.  An extended trailer is now available here:





Several more clips are also available on Youtube. This is from episode 1 about Abraham and features interview footage with British actor Gary Oliver who plays Abraham:





I love the fact that he remembers watching Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth when he was eleven, which means that he is a similar age to me -- and that was a memorable experience in my life too.

This video is in the same format -- interview footage with British actor Lonyo Engele who plays, rather appropriately, the Guardian Angel, also in the first episode. He also talks about how he has seven angel tattoos on his body! There is some footage here of the destruction of Sodom.





This one is in the same format again, an interview with British actress Kierston Wareing who plays Delilah in Episode 3, along with footage from that episode. There are some interesting reflections here on the accent she used; she is an Eastenders actress who has a cockney-sounding accent but she wants to make sure that she can be understood by the American audience:





From the same episode, British actress Sharon Duncan-Brewster plays Samson's mother. There are again video clips and she talks about how she had to sit in the make-up chair for hours when she is aged.





And the great thing about Sharon Duncan-Brewster is that she has also appeared in Doctor Who, in the 2009 tenth doctor "special" "Waters of Mars".

Lots more stuff is appearing regularly on The Bible Series website including useful episode summaries.  I will continue to post blog updates here as these new publicity materials appear.  Previous posts under this label: The Bible Series.  See also Facebook and Twitter.

The Nativity gets American premiere on BBC America

Back in 2010, the BBC followed up its successful The Passion (2008) with The Nativity, a two hour drama written by Tony Jordan and stripped across several nights on BBC One (IMDb). I thought it was an excellent drama.  Historical consultant Helen Bond had her own reflections on it.  At the time, I noted that it was to be distributed by BBC Worldwide and hoped that it might get shown in America.

Two years later and The Nativity is about to get its American premiere over on BBC America, on Sunday at 1pm ET/PT.  They are showing it in one fell swoop rather than stripped across several nights, so you'll have to treat it like watching a film.  For those who haven't seen it yet, do try to catch it.

Here's the original BBC One trailer, just 40 seconds' worth, still available on Youtube:



In the lead up to the BBC America showing, Amazon Instant Video and iTunes have made available a free three minute "sneak peak" for downloading.  It's Joseph talking to Joachim and Anna, Mary's parents, and then a nice scene of Joseph and Mary walking and chatting.

This presumably means that the series will be available for purchase on both Amazon and iTunes as soon as it has aired next week, which is all good news.

I am delighted to see that this has made its way to America at last.  If only the BBC had partnered with BBC Worldwide for The Passion, rather than HBO, perhaps we might have had an American release for that by now.

Disambiguation: this is not The Nativity Story, directed by Catherine Hardwicke and released four years earlier in 2006 in cinemas (my review), nor is it Nativity!, a comedy produced by BBC Films a year earlier, in 2009, and starring Martin Freeman.

Update: I've just noticed that The Nativity is also getting repeated this year on BBC HD, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, 5.30/5.45pm -- The Nativity (including more clips for those in the UK, or with jiggery-pokery skills).

The Jesus Blog - Le Donne and Keith

I've been enjoying the new blog from Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne.  Its focus is on historical Jesus research and it intersects in a timely way with the release of their new co-edited book, Jesus, Criteria and the Demise of Authenticity (London & New York: T & T Clark, 2012).  It also acts adds to the sense of anticipation ahead of the associated Conference in Dayton, Ohio in a couple of weeks (4-5 October).

The Jesus Blog

There is more, though, than just reflections on the book and the forthcoming conference.  There is the first part of an interview with Helen Bond and a top ten on why not to start a blog, which includes the point that "Martin Hengel never blogged".  I think that that fact would encourage me to start a blog, but that's just me.

Reflecting on the BBC/HBO Passion

It's a great pleasure to read Matt Page's Few Thoughts on The Passion. It is three years now since it aired on BBC1 in Easter 2008 and there is still no sign of its appearance here on HBO. I remember the producer, Nigel Stafford-Clark, mentioning that it might be "some time" before HBO screened it but I didn't imagine it would be four (or more) years. And sadly, it will do so now after the death of the writer Frank Deasy in 2009.

I have only re-watched parts of it again since 2008 and Matt's post reminds me that it would be rewarding to go back and watch it in toto again. He makes an interesting point about how time has changed the perception of several of the actors. One that I would add would be Ben Daniels who was a brilliant Caiaphas in The Passion and who, since then, has become a staple of Law and Order (UK), now already in its fourth series. I started watching that in part out of curiosity to see Ben Daniels in another role (and in part to see Freema Agyeman, Martha from Doctor Who, acting alongside him) and I have come to love the programme. Daniels plays a role a little similar to Caiaphas, a lawyer working for the CPS, though perhaps a little less stern and a little more kindly in this.

Nails in the coffin of the Nails of the Cross documentary

Before Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross documentary has even aired, it looks like the story has died. Where news stories have continued to appear, they generally have riders like "Experts doubt it", which is encouraging to see.  When the Washington Post weighed in on Friday, they quoted Gabriel Barkay to the following effect:

"There’s no proof whatsoever that they originate in the tomb of Caiaphas,” he said. “It’s all conjecture."

Even if we were sure that these nails came from the Caiaphas tomb, and even if we were sure that it is Caiaphas the High Priest's tomb, it is of course bonkers to assume that these nails would have been the nails from Jesus' crucifixion.  But Barkay's comment makes clear that there is nonsense on top of nonsense here.

I took a look at the History Channel's schedules and noticed that they are broadcasting this documentary at 11pm, which hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement!

Simcha's Nails: Illustrating the Problem

I know that I should leave the story alone, but perhaps I may draw attention to at least one element in the reports that illustrate the problem with Simcha Jacobovici's absurd claims to have found the nails that crucified Jesus.  Time Magazine's report features this statement:

The Nails of the Cross dwells on 1st century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ.

Now it is of course possible that the Time reporter has misunderstood something in the documentary, but I would not be surprised if this kind of nonsense is present given that the Lost Tomb of Jesus website features several clams of this kind that are demonstrably false.

So let us be clear.  There are no "first century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ".  In fact there are precious few first century sources that mention Caiaphas at all.  He appears by name in Matthew, Luke and John (and arguably as the unnamed "high priest" in Mark 14) and he appears twice, briefly, in Josephus's Antiquities 18.  As far as I am aware, that is it for the literary record.   In none of these, nor in any other writings from the early centuries does Caiaphas become a follower of Christ.

Indeed the scarcity of the literary record on Caiaphas draws attention to one of the many other difficulties with the claim about the nails, that Caiaphas was only associated with the crucifixion of one man, for example here:

Caiaphas, infamous for the crucifixion of only one man, could have asked his offspring to place the nails in his ossuary, speculated the filmmaker.

This idea, of Caiaphas's infamy in relation to Jesus, is a feature in most of the articles that have been written about it. But we simply don't know anything about other crucifixions that Caiaphas may or may not have been involved with. Josephus does not associate him with any crucifixions, but he does not associate him with anything much at all. And I'd have guessed that the Romans crucified other Jews in Judea in Caiaphas's time as High Priest too (c. 18-36).

And in fact our sources, meager as they are, do mention two more crucifixions carried out by the Romans while Caiaphas was high priest, of two men (brigands, insurgents) along with Jesus (Mark 15.27 and par.). I think it is historically naive to imagine that these were the only three crucifixions carried out in the eighteen year period from 18 to 36, while Caiaphas was high priest.

That is just for starters, and already treats the claims with more respect than they are due.

BBC Nativity Round-up

One of the nice things about being in England for Christmas is catching programmes like The Nativity as they air. The fourth and final part aired at 7pm last night on BBC1 and I really loved it. I can't wait to watch it all again properly. It's all on the BBC iPlayer, of course, though international users will need to use a little jiggery-pokery to make it show up for them.

It is good to see the programme getting some coverage in the blogs. As one would expect, Matt Page, over at the Bible Films Blog, is right on top of things, with his own Full Review and then a Review Round-up with further useful commentary, noting that it has been something of a hit, both critically and in terms of viewing figures -- it pulled in more even than The Passion back in Easter 2008. In particular, it's worth noting Doug Chaplin's four part, episode by episode review. I was hoping to do something similar myself, but travel made it impossible, so I am delighted to see Doug doing a better job than I would have done. My full review will follow in due course.

Also worth a visit is Helen Bond's blog post about her involvement as historical consultant on the series.

There have only been a couple of complaints, one from Jonathan Romain concerning the depiction of a rabbi in the series (BBC Nativity drama was not "anti-Jewish") and another where the Daily Express embarrass themselves over a couple of lines of dialogue.

Also worth noting is a nice piece on the BBC blog by Tatiana Maslany, who was brilliant as Mary,Tony Jordan's Nativity: I play Mary. The piece comes with the following clip:

British New Testament Conference 2010

This year's British New Testament Conference began yesterday in Bangor. I have had to miss the BNTC for the last five years since I moved to the US and it always feels a bit odd not to be there. I was heavily involved with the organisation for several years, as the secretary and treasurer of the society, and I regret that I had only one chance (2005) to go along as a punter before moving away. Knowing that several bloggers are present, I am looking forward to hearing some reports. Jim Davila is a stalwart of the conference and will no doubt have reports for us; the new Sheffield Biblical Studies blog is already blogging on the ground, though without specific attribution (after the initial post from James Crossley); and Helen Bond mentions the conference on the new Centre for the Study of Christian Origins blog.

Gerry Adams on Judas's Betrayal, The Bible: A History

Tomorrow's Times carries an article on the forthcoming fifth episode of The Bible: A History, which focuses on Jesus and is presented by Gerry Adams. The article is headed I know why Judas betrayed Jesus, says Gerry Adams in Channel 4 documentary. Except that he does not. The documentary does not actually discuss Judas at all. (I am series consultant, which is why I have seen and contributed to these materials). The Times has apparently taken this material from Helen Bond's op-ed piece for Bible and Interpretation over a month ago, Jesus through the eyes of an Irish republican (not "her blog", as the piece incorrectly has it). Helen was discussing there her conversations with Adams and how they had caused her to think about the Historical Jesus, but no discussion about Judas appears in the programme.

Meanwhile, Doug Chaplin offers his reflections on tonight's episode, "Daughters of Eve", over on Clayboy, and I have been meaning to mention The Independent's write-up of last week's episode featuring Anne Widdecombe.

Update (18.20): Jim West comments.

The Bible: A History on the blogs

Over on the T & T Clark blog, Dominic Mattos notes the presence of several T & T Biblical Studies authors on TV. On The Bible: A History, there have been appearances from Francesca Stavrakopoulou (episodes 1-2) and Henry Wansbrough (episode 3), and Dominic also notes that I am the Series Consultant. And there are more T & T Clark authors to come, Paula Gooder in episode 4 ("Daughters of Eve" with Bettany Hughes) this Sunday, Helen Bond in episode 5 on Jesus (the Gerry Adams episode), James Crossley in episode 6 on Paul (the Tom Holland episode) and me in episode 7 on Revelation (the Robert Beckford episode). Larry Hurtado also appears in episode 6, though I don't think he's published with T & T.

Elsewhere on the blogs, Matt Page, in Bible Films Blog, comments on the Ann Widdecombe episode, The Bible: A History, part 3 and Doug Chaplin, in Clayboy, has comments on the same episode, Going clubbing with the Bible (mainly anyone who disagrees).

Helen Bond on the Apocalyptic Jesus (and Doctor Who!)

Helen Bond's latest op-ed piece on Bible and Interpretation is an enjoyable piece on The Relevance of an Apocalyptic Jesus including this gem:

Against this background, a non-apocalyptic Jesus sounds oddly complacent, stuck in an 80s time warp, when the only thing to rail about was conspicuous consumption and social inequalities. Of course, these things are important, and I don’t doubt that Jesus had something to say on the matter, but in a modern context these reconstructions seem to lack an important dimension. There is no point in teaching others to fiddle a better tune if Rome is about to burn all around you.

It's naturally a pleasure to see that other NT colleagues enjoy Doctor Who, but Helen is clearly not a geek, as this comment shows:

Over Christmas and New Year, six-million people in Britain tuned in to the popular TV series Dr Who, in a lengthy two-part special called "The End of the World" (luckily David Tennant averted disaster).

The two-parter was actually called "The End of Time", though Helen is quite right that its apocalyptic scenario witnesses to some taste for such things among the British public, who gave the two parts unprecedented appreciation indexes of 87 and 89 respectively. Helen's viewing figures are grossly underestimated; the total viewing figures for each episode were in fact over twelve million (source: Blogtor Who). If I were being really geeky, perhaps I might add too that while David Tennant clearly "averted disaster" he did so at the expense of his own identity, and now we have Matt Smith to look forward to.

The Bible: A History Latest

I recently mentioned the forthcoming Channel 4 (UK) series, The Bible: A History (The Bible: A History, Channel 4 Series), made by Pioneer TV, on which I've been series consultant. We are now only weeks away from broadcast and the series is getting some attention around the web. Helen Bond, who appears in the episode on Jesus, today offers her reflections on Jesus through the Eyes of an Irish Republican over on Bible and Interpretation,

. . . . My role in the program was to act as Gerry’s mentor, to accompany him on his trips (including one dark evening when we found ourselves paddling in the Sea of Galilee in a thunderstorm discussing Jesus’ miracles), and to discuss the days’ findings with him every evening. We spent hours arguing whether first-century Galilee was “occupied”; the meaning of “democracy” in ancient societies; high priestly “collaboration” (and alternatives); and whether Jesus foresaw his own death. I’ve not often had the chance to discuss these things with a man who has been on the run from political authority, who has experienced internment, who has been shot at (and still bears the scars), and who is now protected from the “real IRA” who regard him as a traitor – and I have to say that I learned from him too . . .

Tommy Wasserman shares his thoughts on Evangelical Textual Criticism, Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams in Search for Jesus and Papyrus 45, including comments about filming of P45. And Matt Page comments over on Bible Films.

Frank Deasy tribute and obituary

I mentioned the sad death of Frank Deasy last week. Matt Page has some comments on Bible Films Blog and tomorrow's Times has an obituary:

Frank Deasy: Film and Television Writer

Frank Deasy had a distinguished career as a television writer, winning an Emmy two years ago for the final instalment of Prime Suspect and injecting fresh drama and debate into the Gospel story with his BBC/HBO mini-series The Passion last year . . . .

. . . . Deasy attempted to put Christ’s final days into some sort of political context in The Passion, expanding the roles of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas and presenting a sympathetic portrait of Judas Iscariot. “I’ve always had a problem with Judas in Passion stories in that he suddenly and inexplicably betrays Jesus,” said Deasy. “I was keen to develop a psychological reality to Judas’s portrayal.” Traditionalists accused the BBC of rewriting the Gospel, but the mini-series received generally favourable reviews.

"Generally favourable" is a bit of an understatement, but it's good to see The Passion getting a strong mention. This follows on from the obituary in yesterday's Observer, mentioned by Matt Page:

Frank Deasy Obituary

Scriptwriter whose work for television included The Passion and Prime Suspect 7
Ronald Bergan

In Our Time: St Paul

This morning's In Our Time on Radio 4 was about the Apostle Paul, with a good panel made up of John Barclay, Helen Bond and John Haldane. You can listen online or download the podcast for the next week.

Secrets of the Cross, Episode 2: Who Really Killed Jesus?

The first episode of this series of four documentaries, Secrets of the Cross, was called Secrets of the Jesus Tomb and was broadcast on the UK network channel Five on 2 September (and reviewed here). The second documentary went out last Tuesday, so I am a little late with my review here.

Matt Page has provided an excellent review on Bible Films Blog and also on rejesus. Matt gets this one exactly right. There were some real strengths here -- the team of experts selected (Helen Bond, Ann Wroe, James Tabor, Shimon Gibson and one or two others) were excellent, the use of location shooting was well done, and on the whole the documentary approached its subject matter in a historically responsible way, albeit with an occasional unnecessary black-and-white history vs. theology contrast.

This documentary, which like the previous one is made by CTVC, avoided the extremes of fundamentalism on the one hand and sensationalism on the other, and it packed a decent amount of historical detail into the narration and the expert interviews without becoming convoluted. We heard about the Pilate inscription in some detail, and there was an enjoyable scene where Helen Bond, who was on screen more than anyone else, drew the key part of the inscription in the sand by the sea. As well as the experts, there was some newly filmed silent drama, in the modern documentary style, featuring a black Jesus, lots of blood, some Roman soldiers and several scenes with Pilate. It was quite well done, though it is difficult not to find it a bit distracting, especially if one is familiar with the inevitably superior film portrayals of the same events, which are of course too expensive to use in documentaries like this.

On the whole, the programme avoided cliché, though at one stage Jesus' actions "set him on a collision course" with Rome. The history was in the main responsibly done, and it avoided condescending to the audience. Among other virtues, the programme makers did not shy away from addressing the difficulty of the evangelists' portrayal of the Passion, especially Pilate's hand-washing and the crowd's blood guilt line in Matthew. The only minor criticism I would want to make would be that it presented a rather hard-and-fast line, explaining to the audience how things were without allowing for the inevitable difficulties of doing ancient history, with room for contrasting views among different scholars. Documentary makers sometimes underestimate the extent of the audience's interest in the process of doing history, and of weighing contrasting opinions.

After this greatly superior second entry in the series, I am looking forward to the third documentary, Mary Magdalene: Saint or Sinner, which aired tonight and is repeated on Sunday at 11am, and which is also available free to UK users on Demand Five.

The Passion, episode 3

The third episode of The Passion was broadcast tonight on BBC1. I was on the road so was unable to watch it, but will catch up on Sunday (I've seen it lots of times before, but I like to get the full televisual experience of watching it at the same time as everyone else). I am not doing my own reviews of The Passion, at least not for a year or two, because of my involvement in the production. In fact, I don't know that it's ever appropriate for people who played a role (however small) in a production to review it, though they might offer reflections at some point. That is something I have done a little of already, but I would like to do at much greater length in the future. There are all sorts of interesting little pieces of background information that would be interesting to share, but all at the right time. For now, I am fascinated to be listening to others' reactions. And generally speaking, reactions so far have been very encouraging.

For those who missed the episode but who are in the UK, it's available in the iPlayer for another week; you can access it directly from The Passion website. There are several sets of reviews and reflections already available. Doug Chaplin on Metacatholic is still finding more to like than not to like (The Passion continues, and rather well). It's all worth reading, but I found this observation particularly interesting:

One feature that any Jesus film brings home is the difficulty of narrating the terse stories of the gospels over anything like a sufficiently dramatic time span when portrayed on the screen. This was part of the effectiveness of the imprisoning of Jesus in a kind of well in Caiaphas’ courtyard. It gave a sense of time passing to the events, without seriously elongating the trial scenes with invented dialogue.

Gemma Simmonds, SJ, has a positive review over onThinking Faith

. . . . The richness of this production is in those momentary looks of realisation. Pilate looks at Jesus and knows there is more to this than he can see. Claudia’s frenzy is quelled by Pilate’s pragmatism and her own realisation of the risk Jesus represents to what makes her life bearable. Caiaphas’s whole face quivers with intensity and horror as he hears Jesus utter words that would destroy all that he has tried so desperately to save. . . .

And Matt Page, on Bible Films Blog, continues his very helpful Scene Guides series (Part One Scene Guide; Part Two Scene Guide) with his Part Three Scene Guide and connected reflections, including some thoughts on how it would have come across if had been broadcast in the originally planned six half-hour episodes. He wonders how HBO will treat it. My guess would be (and I have heard nothing on this, so it is only a guess) that they will broadcast it in thee x one hour episodes, which will actually end up producing another interesting but different viewing experience.

Independent praises "surprisingly gripping" Passion -- and other links

I omitted to refer to The Independent's very positive review of The Passion. As usual, I'll quote a section, but it's all worth reading:

The Weekend's TV: The Passion, BBC1
Gavin & Stacey, BBC3
Don't pass over this Easter treat
By Thomas Sutcliffe
Monday, 17 March 2008

. . . . The Moroccan location and the dusty hugger-mugger of some of the street scenes mean that it is fleetingly haunted by the spirit of The Life of Brian, but only the most zealously dogmatic Christian could complain that it was irreverent.

Naturally, at least one dogmatic Christian has already volunteered his services. Stephen Green, the self-appointed pharisee who speaks for Christian Voice, has expressed disquiet at the fact that Deasy's account of Christ's last days should have been at pains to round out the motivations and character of two other notable players in the drama – Caiaphas, the High Priest, and Pilate, the Roman Governor. Mr Green wouldn't be satisfied, I suspect, unless both men appeared on screen accompanied by sulphurous gusts of smoke and a blast of the Carmina Burana. But for the rest of us, religiously minded or not, the prospect of a series diplomatically poised between revealed truth and historical speculation must be something of a relief. If you believe that Christ is your redeemer I can't so far see anything in The Passion that would have affronted that faith. And if you don't, its account of the politics of a week that was critical in world history proved surprisingly gripping.

If you missed the first two episodes and live in the UK, the Passion website has placed each one online so that you don't even have to go to the iPlayer:

The Passion: Episode Guide

Also on the BBC site, there are lots of comments from viewers, some of which make interesting reading to get a sketch of a range of reactions.

Digital Spy has viewing figures for the first episode, a slightly disappointing 4.1 million, a 15% share of the audience, apparently losing out to Dancing on Ice, almost 12 million (44% of the audience). As for the second episode, Doug Chaplin (Metacatholic) and Michael Bird (Euangelion) are bang up to date, with their episode 2 reviews going online within hours of last night's broadcast.

Also yesterday, Simon Mayo's TV Panel reviewed The Passion; you can listen again; fast forward to about 3.35pm for discussion of The Passion.

More comments and links later.

Guardian Review of "Fabulous" Passion

Saving the best until last, it's nice to wake up this morning to a great review in Media Guardian. It is not possible for me to conceal my delight at this review, all the more so as it occurs in The Guardian:

The weekend's TV
Sam Wollaston

A bunch of blokes with long hair and beards head towards a city. ELO on tour? Nope, too many of them, and the lead guy's on an ass. There's a lot of palm fronds about the place ... ah, I think I know what this is: Palm Sunday. And it's going out on Palm Sunday! So The Passion (BBC1, Sunday), a drama that unfolds in four episodes spread over Easter Week, is TV in real time, a bit like 24, but more retro, and the guy saving the world has more hair. You wouldn't catch Jack Bauer on an ass either . . . .

. . . . . I don't think anyone's going to be getting too upset about it. JC isn't a woman, gay, or a Muslim (though it was all filmed in Morocco - I wonder what the locals made of that). It's actually pretty straight. Gospel, you might say. It is also fabulous, with some great performances: Ben Daniels is excellent as a complex Caiaphas, James Nesbitt plays Pontius Pilate with obvious enjoyment, Joseph Mawle is a believable Jesus (which is, I suppose, what you want from someone who says he's the son of God; it can't be an easy role). The ass is splendid too (it's pathetic, I know, but I just enjoy typing that word). But there's also a vitality and realness about the whole thing that you rarely find with this story. A passion, you could even say, in another sense of the word.

We're getting down and dirty in the narrow streets of Jerusalem, overflowing with life and the blood of sacrificed lambs. It's loud, looks alive, you can almost smell it all. This feels like a place and a time that actually happened. It's not at all preachy, though. There's no "he's good and he's bad" stuff. The characters, too, are treated as real people, not merely as vehicles for messages. In fact you could watch The Passion and totally forget that this story was central to a major world religion. And that's a good thing, I think