"RISEN: the Novelization of the Major Motion Picture"

[Adam]

In spite of it being a Sony Hollywoodized film as I expect it to be when it comes out Feb. 18th, I don't expect any conflicts with or softenings of the gospels upon which it is based. Nothing should offend Fundamentalists nor the orthodox. Nevertheless, the book does avoid needless bows to Fundamentalists and the Orthodox (with a big "O" to include Roman Catholics here). Acknowledging Mary the Mother of Jesus was there, it does not idolize her. It does not assume the Apostle John was the other disciple of John the Baptist of John 1 (though propinquity of names suggests the original script and maybe the movie does make this connection that's not so--Andrew is the other disciple). The book shows strangely little reliance on Luke-Acts, John 20, and of course Mark 16:9-20. The script makes the most of Matthew's version, though petering out towards the end (neglecting the last five verses). John 21 is also highlighted, because an outsider, the Roman commander hero of the movie, can be fitted nicely in there.

Worth mentioning is the book's solution for the Twelve Apostles problem. The problem is why the Twelve continued to be so such a part of the Synoptic gospels in spite of one of them being a traitor. The book on Page 269 gives a unique list of them basically from Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:16-18, but drops Judas Iscariot and adds in Nathaniel (from John 1:45-49).

The book favors the physical Resurrection body, but waffles on how to explain it. On page 236 the hero asks without getting an answer,
"A man who rises from death. And eats and laughs...and disappears? How can that be?" Peter's response is equivocal. And after discussion the hero closes with, "And some say Roman religion is illogical[!]"

[Adam]

I can't fix what the program did to my forced editing of the title. Some mod please fix or I'll delete this new post in 30 minutes. (I wanted to distinguish the MOVIE title (Risen) from the rest of the mere subtitle to the book.

[Raphael]

I can't fix what the program did to my forced editing of the title. Some mod please fix or I'll delete this new post in 30 minutes. (I wanted to distinguish the MOVIE title (Risen) from the rest of the mere subtitle to the book.

done (next time just report it and one of us will fix it ... it was lucky I happened to login during your 30 minute window)

[Adam]

Thank you. Disregard my belated request for the change, I like the "ALL CAPS" for "RISEN".
I started this thread in advance of the movie release because of the apologetics nature of the movie/book--it does seriously address what the gospel texts tell us and fills in the blanks of what they don't tell us. I first thought the book was going to address all four (or five or six) Resurrection accounts, but it turns out to omit Luke-Acts and thus the Ascension. (Perhaps the Ascension was beyond the scope of the movie, so best to leave out Luke-Acts from entering much into the script. Wait for the sequel "Risen Higher"!)

[37818]

Just a note on Nathanael. He is identified by some interpreters to be Bartholomew.

"Philip, and Bartholomew; . . ." -- Matthew 10:3.
". . . Philip, and Bartholomew, . . ." -- Mark 3:18.
". . . Philip and Bartholomew, . . ." -- Lule 6:14.
". . . Philip findeth Nathanael, . . ." -- John 1:45.

In Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts and John, the use of the name Nathanael only is found in John's account.

[Adam]

The movie is full-scale apologetics as well, though omitting more extreme scenes like the dead rising from the grave (Mt. 27:52-53). However, the darkness and the earthquake are included. The plot focuses so much on the Roman Guards at the tomb that the movie could be said to be based on the Gospel of Matthew. However, the haul of fish in John 21 is included, yet not necessarily an exception as some scholars regard John 21 as an earlier ending to the Proto-Matthew that preceded both Matthew and Mark (where Mark 16:9-20 now appears). That the movie includes so little teaching that's inserted in the novel (as words of the resurrected Jeshua) makes it more like Mark than like Matthew in this regard.
The movie concludes like Matthew 28:16-20, once again suggesting that the movie follows Matthew for its background plot, setting, and characters. For some scholars the Resurrection in Matthew should be regarded as an earlier ending of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20).

[Adam]

The movie "Risen" takes on the perspective of the Director Kevin Reynolds like a typical action movie from the male point of view. The Gospel of Matthew is similarly action-oriented in its closing chapters, not into navel-gazing. The script was conjointly from Reynolds and the story-writer Paul Aiello, and the softer side of the script is developed by the novelist Angela Hunt into a book half or more from the feminine side, developed so much from Luke and the women featured only in Luke.
The movie's climax is the Ascension from the point of view of Matthew 28:16-20. The novel does not extend as far as the Ascension (nor the journey to the mountain of Mt. 28:16-20, thus avoiding any disharmony there). Neither the movie nor the book dare any flat conflicts with Scripture, though the movie does not feel any need to linger in Jerusalem nor return to it. One could read into this the Director's acceptance of Galilee as primary for the Resurrection, the Gospel of Matthew (and John 21) above Luke 24 or Acts 1:1-11. Is Matthew inerrant, but not Luke?
There are real theological and apologetic values in both the movie and the book, and I am greatly surprised that little interest has been shown in either.