MetaCatholic

Tonight’s episode of The Passion was a short half-hour. (I fear that its start and end points seemed more dictated by the TV schedules than by any strong dramatic framing of the narrative.) Overall I don’t think I’ve significantly changed my views from yesterday’s opening reaction. I am beginning to appreciate some of the benefits of the way the script avoids traditional language: it does serve to really clarify things and make you think. It does have its drawbacks, however, and I think for me they became more obvious around comments on sacrifice, the Law and the sins of the world. The latter is not only hallowed by centuries of Christian tradition, but in the way in which it was used seemed to me to be historically implausible, and rather detached from any of the ways sacrifice, Law and sin might make sense in Second Temple Judaism.

One detail that I’d only half-noted yesterday, but seemed more obvious today, was the preference for referring to Judaeans rather than Jews. It’s particularly noticeable on Caiaphas’ lips. A number of social-scientific critics can be heard punching the air in glee.

What becomes far more obvious in this episode is Jesus’ determination and planning. Some will doubt that historically he saw things in this way. What comes over very strongly is not simply his embrace of the coming execution, but his careful orchestration in planning for it. Yesterday, his determination to fulfil prophecy by entering the city on a colt was very clear and rational. This clearly upset at least one blogger (HT Dave Walker) who seems to think it is unscriptural to suggest that Jesus intentionally fulfilled prophecy. Apparently it only counts if you don’t know you’re doing it.

For me, however, this is a considerable strength. It was further developed today by the way in which the story clearly hinted that Jesus had both planned the Upper Room as a secret venue well in advance, and was busy making sure Judas didn’t find out about it in time to abort it by an early betrayal. The very human characterisation of Jesus, and the very blatant political manoeuvrings of and constraints on Caiaphas and Pilate, might seem to lead one towards a sense of inevitability about the crucifixion. Jesus’ determined planning, and his apparent orchestration of events, prevents any sense of inescapable tragedy. The drama seems to be quite clear that crucifixion is not an inevitable accident of historical forces impacting on a naive man, but a very deliberate thing indeed. If at times Jesus’ teaching sounds naive (and the non-biblical language makes it seem perhaps more so than it should), this event planning is far from naive.

This is a fascinating balancing act in the script and action, and introduces a very satisfying, and I think broadly accurate three-dimensional portrayal of what has too often been interpreted as a one-dimensional drama (whether that dimension is social or theological). In that respect it is certainly growing on me.

written by doug