The following comes from a Mar. 11 op-ed on the Christian Post by Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the Ruth Institute in California.
Despite its box office success, the Son of God …. was one senseless deviation from Scripture after another.
Toward the beginning of the film, the scene depicting the call of St. Peter was completely wrong. In the movie, Jesus and “Peter” go out in a boat alone together, Jesus addresses him as “Peter,” Jesus concocts a miraculous draught of fish, and “Peter” ponders whether or not to follow Jesus.
In the Bible, Jesus encounters Andrew and his brother who is called Simon at that time. They were on the shore, not out in a boat. The brothers drop everything and immediately follow Jesus. The miraculous draught of fish comes later. So does Jesus’ giving him the name “Peter.”
The scene depicting the Ascension was also wrong. The Apostles certainly did not just get up after the Ascension, and start walking off to teach all nations.
The Apostles actually went to the Upper Room, elected Matthias to replace Judas, and waited for the Holy Spirit. Only after the descent of the Holy Spirit, were the Apostles emboldened to go out and preach. These are some of the most dramatic scenes in the Bible, which encompass the entire book of the Acts of the Apostles.
Why do these filmmakers think they need “artistic license” when they had a story as good as that? At the crucifixion, the film quite deliberately shows the soldier piercing the side of Christ, and then no blood and water pour out.
Why did they make such an inane change to the story? To prove to themselves that they could. By the end of my second viewing of this film, I am left with the nagging feeling that I am being duped. The filmmakers have taken relentless and pointless liberties with the text. They did not do a single scene completely correctly…..
To read the entire posting, click here.
When I was in grammar school, the sisters who taught there told all us children not to see the film KING OF KINGS because it was condemned. Such enough I saw in the Catholic paper that it was not a picture to be seen. Later on as an adult I saw the film, and I know why we were cautioned against it. There are many false things in it. The same thing is true with SON OF GOD. When fiction is mixed in with fact, it is no longer true, but confusing. Stay away from films which pretend to be true, but have been mixed with falsehoods. Many books could have been added to the canonical scriptures, but they were not because they were not inspired by God. The Bible as has been handed down (and complied) by the Catholic Church is true. To add scenes or mix up the events is fiction, and is not inspired by God, but by the father of lies.
Thank you Father Karl for telling us how it used to be in Catholic circles while this week Archbishop Gomez continues that pagan/heretical spectacle of his predecessor Cardinal Mahoney , the LA religious ED Conference. He has done nothing to change things there.
As Michael Voris recently suggested, one key omission form “The Son of God,” is its failure to focus on Christ’s institution of the sacraments, particularly communion. The historic event in John 6:52-59, and later, shows Jesus telling everyone that they had to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” to be saved. This would violate Mosaic Law, as well as popular convention and mores, and many left Jesus at that point. This command was simply astonishing, but was not one that Protestants ever adopted. It is important to show Jesus as it appears likely that He was, including the scope of His true message. If Protestants believed this, they would be Catholic. But then, almost no Catholic under 60 remembers the Church even teaching this now, as Church’s ring with laughter and talking, right up until Mass starts, and everyone goes to Communion. Bishops need to bring the importance of the Real Presence to their flocks — but they won’t, being too busy trying to brown-nose their way to favor with The Big Guy in Rome. (Yes, this does include you, Bishop Olson, and your bizarre elimination of the TLM from Fisher-More College; show those Trads how tough you are, how devoted to whatever will get the attention of the Vatican; maybe you can get something new, once the Church’s Liberal Mafia-Curia finishes its trashing of Cardinal Burke and a job or two becomes available.)
Don’t forget baptism too St. Christopher. It misquoted and actually did not give the full words of being born again…it left out the important part where Jesus said “of water and spirit”. Meaning Baptism
Confusion where there should be none.
There are few things wrong with it and I caution anyone who see’s it. It was not totally biblically accurate and that bothers me. The Passion of Christ was accurate and much better! I’m glad that CCD reported this because last weekend I found my self trying to point out the parts that were in error to a few Catholics who saw nothing wrong with it. I wish I didn’t spend the money to watch it. Better off a TV show where we can change channels when error was presented. At the theater I found myself speaking out loud and pointing out the errors, hoping others will hear so people who didn’t know their scripture, would hear the correction.
Abecca ask those who see nothing wrong with it, to read the New Testament.
FYI, Los Angelrs Archbishop Gomez is encouraging the faithful to see the movie. They read his appeal at mass last week. Personally, I agree with father Karl, and will skip the film.
If Archbishop Gomez is encouraging people to see it, why not also give them heads up on where the movie went wrong…just to help the faithful not be mislead especially since many probably do not know their bible.
I’m guessing Bishop Gomez promoted it on the basis of the producers’ hype
and he didn’t have a viewing before the release date.
Most Catholics are SO ignorant of the Bible,
I don’t see how the inaccuracies could hurt those people.
Yes, the Word should be treated with total respect and total
accuracy. But we don’t live in a perfect world and I think it’s better to give
the less informed something to see and get a little education rather
than nothing at all.
Peace and all good things
Considering that Abp. Gomez also sponsors the Religious Ed Congress, this is not surprising–not much interest there in orthodoxy or accuracy in teaching.
EWTN promoted this film endlessly. It left me wondering whether they were getting a cut.
They did? Very disappointing. I know that it is still a good message but it was disappointing to me when it was not very accurate to how the Bible told it. Its not good to leave out those important key points.
See:
https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/catholic-leaders-praise-son-of-god-movie
Yes, I was disturbed by this also. The World Over gave a whole hour to the film–and much affirmative talk on Catholic radio as well. As a well catechized Catholic I was able to discern all of the mis-information as it appeared, but I cringed knowing that many watching were lead astray. As a longtime EWTN supporter, I will be writing a letter asking why the support for a film so lacking in the Truth. I hope all of you will do the same.
I was disgusted with all the coverage EWTN gave it. WHY??? They need to provide some answers. Mother Angelica would have given this film short shrift! Her old shows in re-runs are the best!
Incorrect. Please go see this film for the love of Jesus Christ. great film.
No don’t see it. Its not accurate. There are other better choices! Don’t cheapen down the faith by conforming.
After I saw Roma Downey (she played the Blessed Mother) and state on a publicity tour on t.v. in answer to the question….why is there no satan in the film…..she said he was left on the cutting room floor just where he belongs.
The problem I bet you was that in their last t.v. series on the Bible last year….. the actor who played satan literally looked like Obama! I bet you that’s why, she didn’t want any more adverse publicity! I say just get another actor to play the part….if anything, this world needs to hear about sin and satan, that he really exists! Plus I didn’t like her portrayal of Our Lady, with the Hollywood slant on Our Lady.
Part of the problem is that these religious commentators don’t know the needs of film-making.
I’m hardly an expert. I write as a hobby and currently have a baseball book up on a writing site with more than 70k reads. I have also read a few books on script writing, just to understand the differences.
The variances in the Peter story might very well not be nonsensical. Movie scripts have a very tight page requirement, driven by the fact that movies are most likely to succeed if the running time is close to two hours. That means (approximately) 110 script pages. Often, in a movie adapted from a book, you’re going to have to conflate scenes to fit that script length.
So, if you want to conflate the Peter recruitment story with the miraculous draught of fish, you’re going to need to put Peter in the boat with Jesus rather than on the shore. Now, I haven’t analyzed the theological consistency of conflating these two events, but perhaps the idea is to convey that Jesus’ miracles provided part of the validation to his divinity—which drew followers.
Similarly, not addressing Peter’s name change is probably a running time decision. If you just called him Simon, then started calling him Peter, you’d confuse audiences who aren’t up on their Bible (and isn’t that who you most wish to capture?). If you have the name change, you’d need a scene to explain it, and you’ve added to the running time.
(cont) Now, I understand the imagery of becoming a new man in Christ, but apparently, the director decided this story element wasn’t worth the running time.
As for having the apostles head out to evangelize right after the Ascension rather than include 1) the election of Matthias and 2) huddling in fear until receiving inspiration from the Holy Spirit, this adds two scenes and probably a number of script pages. Again, you have too much story for your two hours of film, so you need to streamline.
Now, we can debate the value of Biblical accuracy vs. box office success. Yet, I think there is a valid argument toward some inaccuracies might be preferable if your film can inspire more people to seek out Christ. Once inspired, they might later learn a more complete version of events through study. Even if this does not take place, could we not contend that an modified version of Bible that reaches many people and maintains most of the Truth, better than never reaching them?
Then we recall that the Bible itself had to meet the practical restraints of its own era. Books were MASSIVELY expensive in that era. I suspect that the bible was written in such a densely symbolic manner in many places was due to the cost, expense, and the memory limitations of illiterate people retaining the stories by memory. Instead, the Bible relied on skilled interpreters in Rabbi’s and Priests to convey the meaning to the faithful.
(cont. 2) Trying to convey the Bible with less ambiguity and more precision would have required many volumes. We can see this statement is true by the voluminous nature of theological analysis that students of the Bible have written to comprehend the word. That was simply not fiscally possible in terms of spreading the faith in the ancient world.
As for the lack of blood and water when Jesus was stuck by a spear, perhaps that was sacrificed because the producers didn’t think the cost of the special effect was worth the story benefit.
Remember, too, that film projects have budgets. Films are the most collaborative of all artistic media. Perhaps the movers and shakers behind this film had to accept contributions from people who were more oriented toward worldly success than religious faith, or else the film doesn’t get made.
I think its entirely possible that this film represents the best effort of those involved, to tell a theologically complex tale within the constraints of their budget and audience attention spans.
Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” could contain more Biblical accuracy because he chose a much narrower story to tell. “Son of God” tries to convey the broad swath of Jesus’ life and, necessarily, has to cram more “story” per minute of running time if what you wish to do is make a feature film.
JonJ Thanks for the time you took to explain some of the facts behind storytelling and film. I posted something about this as well form the perspective of telling stories that are morally true as opposed to physical truth. https://moralpremise.com
Lot’s of interesting reasons for not following the original “Book” from cover to cover when making a screenplay. But explain how Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ could hit the mark for Truth then.
oops, you did……
SandraD Mel Gibson’s passion of Christ movie was accurate because I recall him saying that put his whole heart in it and felt moved to tell the story from, I think it was attributed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich visions. Something like that. Of course His was accurate because He really kept His focus on scripture. His movie continues to being the best.
The film may not be 100% accurate from Catholic perspective, it is still very much worth seeing in my opinion. So few film makers have any interest in Christian oriented projects, this film at the very least “introduces” our savior to those who do not know about Him yet.
This article and most of the posts, except for JonJ, gives grist to the evidence that Christians don’t make very good filmmakers or storytellers that can connect with the masses. Too many Christians mistake physical ruth for spiritual TRUTH. For the Catholics it’s the difference between tradition and TRADITION. What physically occurred in Christ’s life is not nearly as important as what happened SPIRITUALLY. Story telling follows a very precise Natural Law. When you tell a story of something that is physically true you often miss the REAL truth of what’s going on MORALLY. I wrote a book about this. The Moral Premise: Harnessing Virtue and Vice for Box Office success. It’s about telling the MORAL truth and not worrying so much about the PHYSICAL “truth”, which just so happens is a successful business model as well.
The cast in the movie, Son of God, is excellent. Jesus is joyful and peaceful. Jesus is from heaven, a place of joy and peace. The four gospel writers describe the some of the same scenes differently. Many of the details are left out. Jennifer Roback Morse, the critic, attacks the filmmakers personally. I believe that Jesus likes this movie
4unborn it sounds like it was you who liked this movie, that is fine if that is how you go…but don’t speak for Christ. The Bible is the holy Word of God. He has spoken. Notice that in His word, that there was some inconsistencies? So how can you draw to the conclusion that Jesus likes this movie if in some parts it contradicted His own words or intentions. Come on. Think!
Time to tell Catholics to have a more personal relationship with Christ. Its hard to tell that Catholics meditate on the stations of the cross, with some of the comments here. How can it be that there is so much indifference. Its a pity I tell you!
Allow me to clarify better by correcting what I was trying to convey(sorry being severely anemic has weaken my skills to convey better):
Notice from His holy Word, that In THIS film there was some inconsistencies on key points? So how can you draw to the conclusion that Jesus likes this movie if in some parts it contradicted His own words or intentions. Come on. Think!
Oh, for goodness’ sake!
No film needs to be historically accurate, or quote Scripture precisely, or anything of the sort — just as no novel does.
The point is to tell a good story, to get people thinking, to spur folks in their faith, and, hopefully, to cause some good discussion and conversion.
I personally love religious films that are “different” precisely because they force me to see the Scriptures in a new light and thus grow in my faith.
I’m not going to become will wild, pot-smoking heretic because of a Hollywood film; and if I were such a person, my faith would be pretty weird to start with.
Anony fine but I suggest not to change the words of Christ! That is wrong. So I would have to disagree with you in many points you made. You can’t compare the story of Christ to just anything that Hollywood decides to make.
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion but don’t get upset at people for pointing out where the film needed improvements. Its about our Lord! Its not something to take lightly. We are not talking about just any ole story of just anyone but we are discussing the story of Christ’s passion. Of course I support any good family movie, yes and this was an opportunity for me to discuss with my family and go over accurate accounts of the story from the word of God. But like any movie coming from Hollywood, we have to be honest with our reviews. And since this movie was not free….since I am a paying customer, then yes I would expect it to inspire me more with expecting the truth especially when it is a story telling us about accounts of the life of our Lord!
The film, “Son of God,” does not live up to its billing, not merely because of the many errors, the poor casting choices, weak direction, or its superficial treatment of the most important story in the history of mankind, but because it muffs this great opportunity to spread the teachings of Jesus Christ, choosing instead to concentrate on the dramatic high points of His life for dramatic effect rather than creating a film that would provide an opportunity for the viewer’s personal spiritual transcendence.
While I’m grateful that there are people who care enough about Jesus Christ to give this film their best, the result is simply too much Hollywood soap opera and too little of the enormously important teachings of the Son of God. This is a crying shame since it is only by following His teachings that any of us mortals dare hope for eternal life in the presence of Our Lord.
Our Lord, the true Son of God, deserves a more masterful film than this well-intentioned failure. I hope next time such a potentially important film is undertaken, each mere human being involved endeavors magnificently to deliver the promise contained within this most glorious subject.
The whole Truth and nothing but The Truth please!
Perfection is the enemy of the very good.
Matthew 5:48 “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect”
Don’t settle or conform for less when it comes to key points that point to the truth! I applaud those who seek perfection when it comes to the truth. For their genuine love for that zeal will help them gain a more virtuous life.
From posts way back: Arbp Gomez is encouraging Catholic to see this film? What IS this supposed Shepherd up to?
First he is perpetuating the LA REC. Now he is encouraging seeing a heretical movie, and since the hentes believe what is portrayed in movies is for REAL, what is seen will be believed. Is he not a member of Opus Dei? WHO can rein him in? Pope Francis, where are you when we NEED you!
Arbp Gomes needs to begin with teaching, preaching about the proper use of the Marital Act: open to the generation of children in every act, instance. Let us see how “popular” he is when preaching the TRUTHs of the Catholic Church.
Did jesus see contraception as central to his message? I’m just asking, because I can’t find it there, yet many people like you seem to think that was why the Son of Man came to earth.
I do not like any of the modern films, about Christ! Hollywood does not care about Christianity, of course! I only like Fr. Patrick Peyton’s films, through his wonderful Family Rosary Crusade theater productions! These films were excellent! I think Hollywood should be boycotted by Christians of all denominations, and their leaders should all make strong statements about the Hollywood film industry! I could not watch Mel Gibson’s horrible, violent, careless, senseless production, “Passion of the Christ!” Most modern films are too violent, trashy, and shallow, to my tastes, and lack warmth, naturalness, and humanity! So– I very seldom see movies, at all! To me, the ugly film presentation, “The Passion of the Christ,” was not Christ’s message! Fr. Patrick Peyton, many years ago, did a much better job, of presenting religious historical subjects, with his wonderful Family Rosary Crusade theater productions! (EWTN sometimes presents his films.) The whole point of Christ’s passion and death, in a film, is not brutality and violence, but a sensitive and historically accurate portrayal of the final hours of Christ, which are also extremely holy and spiritual! Yes, Christ endured violence and death, for our sins! But that was not His point! His point was to love His Heavenly Father, God, and to stand up for God’s Truth, and teach His people how to live right, as God wants them to– and to also die, to save mankind, out of love! Our Salvation was not born merely out of bloody violence, it was the result of LOVE! And likewise, Christians have done the same, throughout the ages–teaching Christ’s Truth, standing up for what is right, and submitting themselves to die, violently, if they must, rather than to cowardly betray Christ!
Roma Downey, the producer of this movie, has a masters degree from the new-agey, unaccredited “University of Santa Monica” in “spiritual psychology.” That alone should be enough to have people avoid this movie. Having her play the Blessed Mother is really quite a travesty. She has made a lot of money capitalizing on religious-themed programming.
See the movie if you want, and make up your own darned mind.
Even if they take poetic license, it might stimulate your faith — or discussion of the faith with your family and friends.
I realize it has inaccuracies.
I personally am glad that A MOVIE about Jesus Christ was made; if we count the movies about Him since King of Kings, I believe there have been a total of 4 or 5 — in what, 50 years?
If we are going to find every aspect that is not perfect about a movie, it will be unlikely that the for-profit studios will ever consider another one. What will we do if another one, with fully Catholic elements is made (wishfully)? will we protest whether the dialogue was Douay-Rheims, CNRV, Jerusalem edition?
I understand the fear of misguidance.
Why not just provide a list of any inconsistency, advocate that we distribute such, so people can make an informed visit to the theater?
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.
Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Well, Abeca, then I guess we must throw out every Bible in existence.
Because, there are more existing versions of the Bible than there are words in the Bible. The text has been so edited, translated, and annotated that no one really knows the original text.
Guess we should just throw it all out.
JonJ the Catholic Bible is accurate, and don’t you forget that. But when you have a movie change the words of Christ, that is wrong. You know very well we need the Bible. For instance you have the Jehovah’s Witness version, which has a lot of error and should be thrown out. In The New Word Translation of the scriptures (the edition of the Bible that is translated, published, and used by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses”), the Gospel of John begins in this way: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” …Yes folks it says a god…yikes, that bible needs to be thrown out too!
Ours Douay-Rheims Bible
“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Almost all other translations read “the Word was God.”.
You also have the Lutherans bible which Luther felt he had to add and change, remove books,. words as well on other parts.
JonJ If that is your solution to throw out all Bibles, I have to disagree with you there. Most bibles do not change Christ’s words. I have to disagree with you. We need the word of God and we need to read it, memorize it and study it from the understanding and truth within our faith. If we don’t then I guess we will be just like everyone else who can just “not take” our Lord’s word’s seriously, we would be like every one else who would settle for just any movie that just decides to make their “own” version of our Lord’s passion and take away the key points that point to truths that are treasures and pearls. They are precious pearls that should be handled with the utmost respect and love. Not compromising what matters the most.
Remember that we are Catholic Christians, our faith contains the wholeness of the truth. Not parts of it. We need to be confident in this understanding and it is safe to point out where this movie went wrong. You might be OK to settle with watering down key points in our Lord’s passion, but I am not. He died for our sins and payed a high price. He deserves better. If you think that they left out something because of expense, well it wasn’t much money to include the correct words of Christ. Not including of the words that needed to be said on being born again, or calling Simon “Peter” in the beginning of the movie, Jesus did not call him that name just yet not until later on .
JonJ If that is your solution to throw out all Bibles, I have to disagree with you there. Most bibles do not change Christ’s words. I have to disagree with you. We need the word of God and we need to read it, memorize it and study it from the understanding and truth within our faith. If we don’t then I guess we will be just like everyone else who can just “not take” our Lord’s word’s seriously, we would be like every one else who would settle for just any movie that just decides to make their “own” version of our Lord’s passion and take away the key points that point to truths that are treasures and pearls. They are precious pearls that should be handled with the utmost respect and love. Not compromising what matters the most.
Charlieo and lm – both say it all for me
Certainly it is regrettable that good people like Mark Burnett and Roma Downey can not get it right but they DID it and good for them- imperfect as it is. While I have not gone out of my way to promote it – among my catholic peers I have already heard two reactions where people ” bawled their eyes out ” at the crucifixion scene. My own brother in law being one and the brother of a Presbetarian pastor the other. Sorrow for our sins? That can’t be bad . Lets be grateful for small mercies. “Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Unknowingly we could be hindering the workings of the Holy Spirit in souls . God can write straight with crooked lines. Example: I got more out of Jesus Christ Superstar than I did from Mel Gibson’s Passion movie ( I’ve studied the passion of Christ for over sixty years).Still I take my hat off to Mel for doing it — seeing how so many people were deeply touched by it. I saw much wrong with his movie – actors-wise , Resurrection scene etc but I believe our God is so starved of love from us his children that He just crumbles with gratitude at any little morsel of love we give him. Pope Francis is telling all believers this very same thing. He says:
Let’s be lovers first and teachers of truth second — so to speak.
“Teach Christ always; if necessary use words . ” St Francis urged us
While we cannot change the errors in films based on the Bible, why should we give the filmmakers a pass to do as they like to change the Bible at will and for commercial reasons, knowing as we do that many people will believe at once what Hollywood presents on the silver screen and never read the Word of God? Is this how we should be faithful to God?
My husband and I went to see the movie before this article came out, and other family members saw it later. Although Fr. Karl, Jon J. , Maryanne Leonard and many others made some good points, this is a family film — and the Good Lord knows we need more of those — and perhaps it will encourage those who have not read the Bible to do so. It should have had an explanation at the beginning of the film that explained that they took some liberties with the Biblical text and encouraged people to read the real thing — the Holy Bible.
There are some Christians, including Catholics, who will not go to any film that shows the face of Christ. The face of Christ was not shown in the movie “Ben Hur”. Just his tanned arms were shown, and it was most effective as far as I am concerned; nevertheless, I myself to not have any objection to showing the actor’s face who plays the Lord if it is done reverently since a film mostly about the life of Christ could not really be made effectively without showing his face at times.
Correction to my fourth from last line: It should read “I myself DO not have any objection, instead of “TO not have any objection”.
I would not take small children to this film, though, as the crucifixion is of course very violent.
But the depictions were not in keeping with CCD!!! If you do not condemn this film, you are a herertic, apostate, etc etc etc!! Many other CCD posters have opined on this, and they are the infallible will of God!!