The Hollywood film about Jesus of Nazareth entitled “Son of God” is an adaptation of a ten-hour miniseries on television entitled “The Bible,” which was first shown on The History Channel in March, 2013. This film was released on February 28, 2014. In its first 2.5 months, it grossed nearly $68 million. But critics reviewed the film negatively, resulting in a 21% rating to date. This disparity between reviews and good box office success reveals that moviegoers, which include a strong Christian segment, are presently primed for Jesus flicks.
Biblical scholars claim Hollywood films about Jesus are notorious for having historical errors about him in relation to the New Testament gospels and/or the place and time in which he lived. This film is no different. (So far, this critique is based only on the Wikipedia entry about this film.)
Was Caiaphas a Pharisee?
The film erroneously identifies Caiphas the High Priest as a “Pharisee.” The high priest was head of the chief priests and of the Sanhedrin, Israel’s ruling council. It consisted of seventy men who were as follows: all chief priests, some Pharisees, and tribal elders, with the high priest being the seventy-first member. He and chief priests controlled Israel’s religious life and thus the temple at Jerusalem.
The chief priests, including the high priest, were quite separate ideologically from the Pharisees and often at odds with them. The chief priests were rationalists who did not believe in miracles, the existence of angels, or a future resurrection and divine judgment. In contrast, the Pharisees believed passionately in all of these. Also, the chief priests only accepted the Pentateuch (first five books of the Jewish Bible=Old Testament) as scripture fully inspired by God, whereas the Pharisees regarded it as well as the Writings and the Prophets as equally inspired.
So, High Priest Caiaphas could not possibly have been a Pharisee. Additional evidence of this is that the NT gospels repeatedly list “the chief priests and the Pharisees” together, thus distinguishing them so that they were not synonymous.[1]
Trial or Hearing?
The film represents that the Sanhedrin held a trial of Jesus and thereupon condemned him as being guilty of blasphemy. Throughout the Common Era until recent times, it was commonly thought that this judicial proceeding presented in the NT gospels, in which the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus, was an actual trial. This assessment resulted in many allegations that such a trial violated Jewish laws. Skeptics have cited these allegations in claiming that the entire procedure did not happen because Jews would not have violated such laws, thus denigrating the historical reliability of the gospels. But in recent times, scholars have changed about this. Many of them now claim that the gathering of some Sanhedrin members to interrogate Jesus, as stated in the gospels, was not an actual trial but a hearing. If so, no rules of Jewish jurisprudence would have been broken.
Why Did the Sanhedrin Condemn Jesus?
The film portrays the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus for blasphemy because he answered affirmatively Caiphas’ question, “Are you the Son of God.” This has been a popular belief among Christians since they think it means Jesus claimed to be God. (See these two posts: September 13, 2015, “Is Jesus God Because He Is the Son of God?” and January 30, 2014, “Did Jesus Tell the Sanhedrin He Was God?”)
All of this is quite wrong. Actually, Matthew and Mark record that Caiaphas asked Jesus if he was “the Christ, the Son of God/the Blessed One” (Matt. 26.63; Mark 14.61). So, Caiaphas here used the two titles interchangeably, suggesting he thought they were synonymous. Besides, the NT identification of Jesus as “(the) Son of God” should be understood according to how that title is used in the Old Testament. It is applied there to men, angels, the king of Israel, and it is once used interchangeably with the “anointed one” (=Messiah; Ps 2.2, 7). Thus, Jesus being designated in the New Testament as the Son of God means one specially favored by God, not that he is God. Perhaps a majority of distinguished New Testament scholars now affirm this truth.
Also, the Sanhedrin could not have condemned Jesus as a blasphemer merely for him claiming to be the Messiah or the Son of God because there was no law in Torah or Jewish jurisprudence against such a claim. Indeed, many false messiahs arose in Israel both before and after the time of Jesus, and religious authorities never accused them of blasphemy for claiming to be Israel’s promised Messiah. A perfect example was when Simon Bar Kokhba claimed to be the Messiah, which caused the Second Jewish Revolt, in 132-135, and resulted in the dissolution of the nation of Israel for over 1,800 years.
Then, why did the Sanhedrin condemn Jesus as guilty of blasphemy? It seems to have been due to his additional answer, “(From now on) you will see the Son of Man [referring to himself] seated at the right hand of Power and coming on/with the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26.64/Mark 14.62). Christians generally have believed that both texts apply to Jesus as Messiah. Apparently, the Sanhedrin thought this added answer usurped the majesty of Almighty God. Yet it alludes to both Daniel 7.13 and Psalm 110.1. (For example, see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus [Mohr Siebeck, 1998], 184-237.)
Why Didn’t the Sanhedrin Kill Jesus?
The film portrays the Sanhedrin as deciding not to kill Jesus, but turn him over to Governor Pilate, in order to avoid a riot during Passover. This is a blatant error. The nation of Israel was not part of the Roman Empire, but a surrogate under subjection to it. Consequently, Rome did not allow Israel to fully govern itself or conduct capital punishment. Those whom the Sanhedrin accused as murderers or insurrectionists had to be turned over to Roman authorities for their final decision. Therefore, Jewish jurisprudence in Israel possessed no authority to execute people.
But this film gets it quite right about the Jewish religious leaders pressuring Pilate to condemn and execute Jesus. Accordingly, the Jewish leaders are the main culprits who get Jesus killed. This has been an unpopular scenario among all types of scholars ever since the WWII Holocaust even though it is clearly and abundantly supported in the New Testament. To find these Jewish leaders as most culpable for Jesus’ death in no way reflects anti-Semitism, as many have alleged, but perhaps it does reflect an anti-Judaism regarding that time period.
Who Did Jesus Ask God to Forgive?
Luke relates while Jesus hung on the cross he said, “Father, forgive them; for they do no know what they are doing” (Luke 23.34). The absence of this saying in some ancient, Greek manuscripts is surely unwarranted and due to scribes omitting it due their misguided notion that it conflicted with Jesus’ previous teaching.
Christians and their scholars have believed that the crucified Jesus asked God to forgive all those people responsible for Jesus’ condemnation and death. Not at all! This interpretation ignores the context of Jesus’ words. For Luke writes immediately before it, “they crucified Jesus there with the criminals” (v. 33). The word “they” obviously refers to the soldiers who nailed Jesus to the crossbeam and hoisted it to the upright pole. So, Jesus was only asking God to forgive those soldiers since they didn’t know what was going on, that Jesus was condemned supposedly for a religious infraction that Gentile soldiers would have known nothing about. In contrast, the Sanhedrin and Pilate knew perfectly well what they were doing. (See my post on May 26, 2014, “Did Jesus Ask God to Forgive Those Who Killed Him?”)
Was Jesus’ Tombstone Rolled Away or Broken into Pieces?
The film also errs in portraying Jesus’ tombstone broken into pieces when the women visit the tomb. Bible readers will instantly recognize this error since, of the NT gospels, only Matthew tells of the stone being removed from the tomb’s entrance. He says, “an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it” (Matt. 28.2). The women then arrived. It is surprising the film’s producers allowed the script to so blatantly depart like this from the Bible.
[1] Matt. 21.45; 27.62; John 7.32, 45; 11.47, 57; 18.3.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In