Apr
12
Hugh Bonneville on the Countdown to Calvary
“Whether you are a person of faith or of none, you cannot escape the fact that the last six days of this man’s life, and his death, changed the world.” — Hugh Bonneville, actor
A couple years ago, I came across this article about actor Hugh Bonneville (“Downton Abbey”) and the documentary he had completed: “Jesus: Countdown to Calvary”. Interestingly, before entering drama school, Bonneville earned a theology degree from Cambridge University, where he was taught Christian history by Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Though that was 30+ years ago, it seems that this fact (and his particular interest in the synoptic Gospels) is why RTE asked him to host the documentary.
“Bonneville does not examine the merits or failings of Christianity. He does not get into question of faith or supernatural belief or the divinity of Jesus. Instead, he and the documentary’s makers (Raidió Teilifís Éireann, ARTE and American Public Television) look at the historical, economic and sociological factors that contributed to making Jerusalem a powder keg in the days before Jesus’ crucifixion.”
Fair enough, though I will say that at least the views of the authors and academics who were interviewed definitely do betray their own theological leanings. And, of course, Bonneville accepts their theories. It is noteworthy that, as is typical of such documentaries, not one conservative Christian was consulted. As far as I can tell, the only “Christian” of any sort was the Dominican Father Gregory Tatum from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem.
I finally got a chance to watch the documentary itself. It does a good job of showing the modern city of Jerusalem, mentioning significant locations, and describing the political milieu at the time and what the city probably would have been like during a Passover Week almost 2000 years ago. (Tatum also gives a good summary of the nature of crucifixion.) Bonneville himself expresses a bit of surprise at how real it all became to him, especially when he saw artifacts (i.e., the Pilate Stone, the Caiaphas bone box, the heelbone of a crucifixion victim w/ spike through it) that serve as evidence of the “historical reality” of the biblical accounts.
Overall, the documentary isn’t too bad when it sticks to the focus of “historical, economic and sociological factors” surrounding Jesus’s execution. However, there were a few things from the doc and the interview that were strange and/or objectionable — certainly controversial. I am tempted to address many of them (especially those of Prof. Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ)), but I will limit myself to a handful of things Bonneville himself said in the interview and perhaps related statements from the film.
1) One particular thing that seemed odd to me was when Bonneville said early on (as quoted in the interview): “Did [Jesus] have any idea when he first entered the city that the countdown to Calvary had begun?” And, later in the doc, “Isn’t it likely that Jesus knew exactly what He was doing?”
If one takes the Gospel accounts as historically reliable, then we already know the answer to that. But, although Bonneville quotes other verses in the Bible, he manages to ignore those that reveal that Jesus knew exactly what was about to go down. For example, Matt. 16:21-23 and Matt. 20:17-19. (Note that he references Himself as the Messianic ‘Son of Man’ figure from Daniel 7.)
“17 While going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the 12 disciples aside privately and said to them on the way: 18 “Listen! We are going up to Jerusalem. The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death. 19 Then they will hand Him over to the Gentiles to be mocked, flogged, and crucified, and He will be resurrected on the third day.”” — Matt. 20:17-19 (HCSB)
I assume this wasn’t so much an oversight by Bonneville but due to tacit agreement with the skeptical/liberal assumption (as mentioned in passing by one consultant) that the Gospels were written in the late 1st century — i.e., post-Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. In fact, this is indicated half-way through the doc (and indicated again toward the end) when Bonneville is discussing the destruction of the Temple. Thus, any such unusual knowledge on Jesus’s part can be explained away by saying it was added to the oral narrative by the later writers merely to enhance His reputation. (Or, other parts may be added for more nefarious reasons, as we’ll see further down.)
2) Here is another Bonneville quote from the interview, though it is echoed in the film:
“[As an outsider,] I was very keen on this project to stop at the cross, to say Jesus wasn’t a Christian — he was a Jew. And from what I can tell he wanted to be the best Jew he could be and that is really at the heart of what led to a potential riot in Jerusalem that could have gotten out of hand.”
Bonneville is correct, of course. There were no “Christians” per se at the time, and Jesus was indeed the most faithful of Jews. But, as with most who make this point about Jesus being a Jew and not a Christian, Bonneville misses the point. Jesus even went out of his way to point out that the Jewish authorities had themselves strayed from God’s teachings through Moses. Many were corrupt. They were more concerned with the letter of the law than with the spirit of the law, even making up additional rules on their own. They had become blind to what serving God really entailed and why, and they often misunderstood the Scriptures they so diligently studied.
Jesus also taught that the old ways were insufficient, and that things would be changing. He Himself would be sacrificed on a cross as the ultimate Passover Lamb. He was going to personally provide the only means — i.e., through the shedding of His own blood — of atonement for sins that will result in reconciliation with God. He wasn’t just endeavoring to be “the best Jew he could be”. He was fulfilling Jewish law and prophecy to rescue His people. Anyone who wanted to take advantage of His sacrifice must repent of their sin, accept His Lordship over their lives, and follow His teachings, many of which were imparted to those He personally trained to lead His followers after He ascended to Heaven. This is the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 4:8-13).
It wasn’t until a few years later that Jesus Christ’s followers began to be called “Christians” — i.e., “little Christs”. It was meant derogatorily, but they embraced it.
3) When it comes to who killed Jesus, Bonneville has the politically-correct answer:
“It was the Romans who killed Jesus, not the Jews.”
But, at the risk of being called anti-Semitic for even suggesting it, this answer is only half right. The Jewish people — as represented by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem at the time and many of the Jewish people — were also responsible. They were the ones who brought Jesus to the attention of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea, and who demanded that Jesus be crucified.
“20 The chief priests and the elders, however, persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to execute Jesus. 21 The governor asked them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you? “Barabbas!” they answered. 22 Pilate asked them, “What should I do then with Jesus, who is called Messiah?” They all answered, “Crucify Him!” 23 Then he said, “Why? What has He done wrong?” But they kept shouting, “Crucify Him!” all the more. 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that a riot was starting instead, he took some water, washed his hands in front of the crowd, and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. See to it yourselves!” 25 All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But after having Jesus flogged, he handed Him over to be crucified.” — Matt. 27:20-26 (HCSB)
It is true that the part of the Jews has been used by some over the centuries as an excuse to abuse and commit atrocities against Jewish people by “Christians” and non-Christians alike. This is a terrible thing but grossly misguided. Contrary to what author/professor Amos Oz (Judas) says in the doc, there is no evidence that the biblical accounts of mistreatment and betrayal of Jesus by Jews were “written in a cold-blooded intention to incite anti-Jewish feelings.” This is just ridiculous. I suspect part of Oz’s reasoning has to do with assuming later dates for the writing of the Gospels, which are largely demonstrably false.
Who killed Jesus? The Jews rejected their Messiah and pressured the Romans into executing Him on false charges. Both groups (and the individuals therein) hold some responsibility. In a sense, everyone else does, too. As fallen children of Adam, it was our own guilt that required Jesus’s sacrifice. But, make no mistake, He laid down His life willingly (John 10:17-18), as had been agreed upon within the Triune Godhead in eternity past.
4) I’d like to address one last quote from Bonneville:
“I love Amos Oz’s point of view that we should thank Judas because without him we wouldn’t have Christianity. You have to understand his role, you cannot condemn him. I think that is a very interesting reassessment of Judas, that he was actually trying to help Jesus. If he hadn’t betrayed Jesus, how would Jesus have gotten to the cross? The part he played in the inevitable road to Calvary is vital.”
There seems to be a recurring attempt in this documentary to make those responsible for Jesus’s death more sympathetic, even to absolve them of responsibility. We saw this with Pontius Pilate — the poor guy was just trying to keep the peace! — and with the Jews. Now, it takes it a step further, declaring that Judas Iscariot should not only be absolved but he’s the actual hero of the story!
“Judas was trying to broker some kind of peace — not to betray Jesus, but to save him.”
Outrageous!
Did Judas play an instrumental part in the story? Yes, of course! But, one has to really abuse the historical text of the Gospel narrative to find such motivations for Judas. He knew the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead. He offered to help, turned Jesus over to them, and got paid for it. That’s deadly betrayal. It wasn’t the first time God used evil men to accomplish His purposes, either.
I believe Judas was predestined — chosen as a vessel of wrath (Rom. 9) — to do exactly what he did. Others might see more autonomous free will involved. Regardless, like all of us, Judas was still morally responsible for his thoughts and actions. Just because he played a crucial role in the “greatest story ever told” does not absolve him of guilt.
Alright, that’s it for this week.
Happy Resurrection Day!
