|
Post by unkleE on Mar 28, 2018 11:11:00 GMT
This new film was discussed in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days back, and looked like it might be interesting. I haven't seen it. But Larry Hurtado gives it the thumbs down, with this being his damning summary: "It ought to be difficult to make stories as riveting as those in the Gospels bland and uninteresting. But the Hollywood record largely shows them fully up to the task, and, sadly, this film is no exception."
|
|
|
Post by samaritan on Mar 31, 2018 14:51:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 31, 2018 20:14:46 GMT
I hadn't gone back to read the comments (there were none when I read it) but they were interesting. Mostly thankful for Hurtado's heads up, only two (I think) critical of him, and I didn't fully understand some of their comments. It's a moot point how historical a movie "should" be, but surely it is at least worth knowing that this film is historically inaccurate. It may still be a good film (though Hurtado thinks it isn't), but knowing the historical facts is surely relevant to our response to the film?
I didn't see Hurtado's review as saying much about female involvement in Jesus' ministry or early christianity, a fact which is in the record and which I doubt Hurtado would disagree with, but maybe I missed something.
|
|
|
Post by samaritan on Apr 2, 2018 16:15:40 GMT
I hadn't gone back to read the comments (there were none when I read it) but they were interesting. Mostly thankful for Hurtado's heads up, only two (I think) critical of him, and I didn't fully understand some of their comments. It's a moot point how historical a movie "should" be, but surely it is at least worth knowing that this film is historically inaccurate. It may still be a good film (though Hurtado thinks it isn't), but knowing the historical facts is surely relevant to our response to the film? I didn't see Hurtado's review as saying much about female involvement in Jesus' ministry or early christianity, a fact which is in the record and which I doubt Hurtado would disagree with, but maybe I missed something. , but surely it is at least worth knowing that this film is historically inaccurateYes it certainly is. I didn't see Hurtado's review as saying much about female involvement in Jesus' ministry. Well he does say in the footnotes: [2] The narrative in John is the obvious basis for the recent Papal decree designating a Feast Day for Mary Magdalene (22 July), and referring to her as “Apostle of the Apostles.” Curiously, this ignores the equally important role of other named women in the other Gospels.Perhaps both The Pope and Professor Hurtado are guilty of relegating women to the footnotes?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 3, 2018 13:30:05 GMT
I missed the footnote. I saw someone on Facebook suggesting that in the interests of Biblical accuracy, all preaching on Easter Sunday should be by women!!
|
|
|
Post by samaritan on Apr 9, 2018 10:36:45 GMT
|
|