The church now has a small group that will watch an episode of The Chosen together every week and then discuss it. Tracy and I missed this week because of covid so I watched episode 1 at home. While it was remarkably well-made in terms of costumes and cultural details, I found myself not very interested. This has been true of life-of-Jesus movies in general. The amount of speculation they have to include in order to create a credible character leaves me cold. In this one, Nicodemus is troubled, even tormented because despite his knowledge and status as a leading rabbi among the Pharisees, he was unable to perform a particular exorcism, in pretty dramatic fashion as the demon told him directly "You have no power here.". Well, that could be. His wife counsels him that he did everything he could for the woman and should focus on being the teacher of Israel. Mary of Magdala is an alcoholic to forget her shame and pain. That could also be. Matthew is presented as nervous, fearful of the crowd, contemptuous of most Jews around him. Well, I suspect lots of the tax collectors were, so it could be. Simon and Andrew gamble and try to cheat. Could be.
Yet none of these is. There is no hard value to this information. Its value is in making the characters seem real to us, making them human. It is an artistic expression designed to put us in the scene. I tend to like such things in sermons and we did lots of them in our annual Jesse Tree skits for 20-25 years. But those take very limited liberties with the text. Dialogue is written, or cultural details are included by way of explanation, not atmosphere. Why did the men lower their friend through the roof? Why was the intent that the woman be stoned? What's up with the palms? What did the Sadducees and Pharisees have against each other? Why do we think Jesus initially refused to make wine? Those tell you something, they are not just for decoration.
I think I also respond better to portrayals that try to counterbalance a common error. When Dorothy Sayers wrote "The Man Born to be King" many people were scandalised that the characters used informal everyday language, even slang, rather than elegant speech. They couldn't have talked like that. Those words made it INTO THE BIBLE and God wouldn't want us to take BIBLE WORDS lightly, would he? We see something similar in The Best Christmas Pageant Ever when Imogene Herdman burps the doll that is the Baby Jesus. Alice Wendelkin is shocked that anyone would think that Jesus might have had colic or anything. The narrator sides with Imogence pretty quickly after thinking about it. She doesn't use theological language, but she correctly perceives that the whole point of the Incarnation is that Jesus does take on our nature. One of the major fights in the early church was around the heresy of docetism, that Jesus only seemed to be human.
I have to figure that these movies must work for a lot of people, maybe even most. But I look at this "development" of Nicodemus as unnecessary. We know how his story goes at the important times, we don't actually need any backstory at all. If there was something that looked quite puzzling and unexplainable, then speculating what might have gone before might have some use.
I'm going to the small group anyway, because of the potential quality of the discussion. That's usually the thing for all small groups and Bible studies. The questions, even the supposedly deep and thoughtful ones, can't hold a candle to what sparks are set off in an individual Christian. Or skeptic, for that matter.
4 comments:
Some random thought -- I know, this seldom turns out ok.
Read a book, watch the movie made of the book material, what reaction do you have?
E.g., Harry Potter series, U.K. Ed. Movie had little to do with the major themes of the books, most notably the servants in the basement. Movies? Fun to watch, good cast of characters that are at once loveable and hated. Typical U.K. clash of ultimate good vs. evil, such a Tolkien, Lewis, etc.
Einstein famously: Imagination is more important than knowledge. Yes, and in very short supply these days.
Entertainment: time wasted on someone else's imagination come to media somehow.
Oct. 5, 1956 --Ten Commandments and Moses, and Charlton Heston is a prime example.
There seems to always be the need for this kind of thing and deciding if you are one of them is ok.
I heard a preacher once who implied there was something dishonest about Nicodemus coming at night.
I read a commentary to the effect that night was the time for serious discussion among rabbis. This is convincing to me. The first thing said about Nicodemus is that he was a ‘ruler of the Jews’, and the first thing he said was ‘We know. . .’ He was there because the Sanhedrin had questions.
And Jesus dealt with him.
Why add to the story?
That is exactly the sort of thing I do find useful.
The problem with Nicodemus would be that he is only in the Gospel of John. The problem with John is two-fold. First the time of writing which mainline authors attribute to 90-125 CE. That would be no less than 40 years after Paul's writings and at least 25-50 after Mark, Matthew, and Luke who all share material but not John. Secondly, what was/is the purpose of John's Gospel. Theologians agree it has historical elements but its purpose has little to do with history and more to do with an explanation of Jesus. Could it be then that Nicodemus represents something. My answer: yes. I stand in impressive company, Tillich, Bultmann, Conzelmann, Brown, Throckmorton, etc. Written for the second generation of people of The Way, we call them Christians but they were imitators of Jesus. This is an intense subject matter and is not casually dealt with with comments. A deeper appreciation for Nicodemus and for that matter, the whole Gospel, require much more such as reading a commentary on the Gospel.
Post a Comment