Attention Christopher Nolan

I went to see The Odyssey again. This time in the way that Christopher Nolan intended: on a 70mm IMAX screen. Thank god I watched it on a regular screen first. The 70mm version is loud as fuck. But I finally see what Nolan was trying to do. The Odyssey is like a spiritual sequel to Oppenheimer. The theme for both films is “man who sacrificed his soul and the future of humanity for temporary victory” or some shit like that. Presumably there will be a third installment to make a complete trilogy.

The question is what will the subject be of this hypothetical film. At this stage in Nolan’s career, he has carte blanche. There’s not a subject under the sun that he can’t make a film about. The only constraints are the ones that Nolan places on himself. So this third film will likely be about a historical or pseudo historical event. The theme has to be the same as the prior two films.

Oppenheimer was about the development of humanity’s most destructive weapon. The Odyssey was about placing the most important story in western literature within the context of the Bronze Age collapse. For the latter, Nolan clearly read Eric Cline’s 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Due to his research on this issue, Cline has reached the status of a celebrity scholar. Nolan knows all these pop scholars, whether they be in history or science. So the events of The Odyssey happened over 3000 years before Oppenheimer. Can anyone think of an event between 1177 BC and 1945 CE that would fit Nolan’s sensibilities?

If he doesn’t know him already, let me introduce the auteur to Bart D. Ehrman, the (retired) James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman might be the most famous biblical scholar to have ever lived. He brought textual criticism of the Bible to the mainstream and no doubt every New Testament scholar granted a Ph.D in the last 25 years was influenced by him. But thanks to Ehrman, biblical studies is a hot HOT topic on YouTube, Reddit, etc. But as far as the New Testament goes, perhaps the biggest debate is the one regarding the “Synoptic Problem” which dissects how the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are related to one another. It a subject that riles the passion of many scholars where having the wrong opinion might get you killed in some universities. And in part due to teaching skills and charisma of Ehrman, even armchair scholars like myself can explain their position on the Synoptic Problem in pedantic detail.

Not to say that Nolan should make a movie about the Synoptic Problem. But the contradicting details described by all the Gospels does sort of fit the director’s propensity for exploring time and memory. While another Jesus movie might not be worthwhile, even if it is directed by Nolan, the most interesting details about the development of early Christianity are the moments immediately after Jesus’s death. The “Christ” didn’t create Christianity. His followers did. And what the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, says is that none of Jesus’s followers understood his message.

This includes the apostle Peter, who many believe created the Church. Peter would be the main character in this hypothetical film. The story starts with him in hiding after the events of the crucifixion (which we only catch glimpses of through memory cuts). He wishes to live in obscurity before he’s dragged back into the mess by James, the brother of Jesus, who successfully kept “The Way” going in Jerusalem. We see the stoning of Stephen and the persecutions of Saul, played by Tom Hardy. Peter goes around “evangelizing” around Palestine before Saul reappears with a new “gospel” and the plot unfolds. Peter loses his way with James and the Jerusalem church and he finds himself in Rome with Saul where he experiences the great fire of 65 AD. Saul is mercifully beheaded. Peter is crucified in the garden of Nero. While on the cross, he remembers Jesus’s crucifixion and the “message” (whatever the fuck that is) becomes clear to him. The historical subtext is that even though “The Way” (Christianity) ultimately prevailed over Rome, it helped unleash religious hatred and persecution over the next 2000 years, which is (probably) antithetical to Jesus’s actual teachings.

Things like the resurrection and miracles of Jesus are handled with an air of indifference. Some people recall him performing them. Others like James say he was only doing good works. Only Saul (or Paul) believes in the total divinity of Jesus. During his “Road to Damascus” event (shown in quick memory cuts), Saul does seem to gain an inexplicable and mysterious insight into Peter which taps into his guilt over fleeing from Jerusalem during Jesus’s crucifixion. But unburdened by this guilt due to Saul’s “insights” and designation as an apostle, Peter feels “born anew” and is slowly torn from the Jerusalem church and towards Saul’s “gentile mission”.

Some say that this story would be too controversial for a studio to back. But I say if every one of your movies makes a billion dollars, then you have every right to make whatever the hell you want. And if Christopher Nolan wanted to make this story, he could. And should, goddamnit.

The death of Peter and Paul at the hands of Christians

First off, I just wanna say that I’m glad nothing else bad happened yesterday. So I hope that the world and the internet can resume a place or normality for the next few days 🙏

And look, I know that my biblical “scholarship” comes totally out of left field when compared to the rest of my blog. But I’m just gonna say it: this stuff gets hits. And I’m not claiming to be the next Bart Ehrman. But I’ve always said that at my core I’m a historian. And that’s what this blog is. It’s not never ending shitposting or deranged ramblings. It’s history. And when I die, which I stated yesterday will probably be by firing squad, this is how people will remember me.

So let’s explore the topic at hand: the death of Peter and Paul by the hands of Christians in the first century CE. I’m not saying that that’s what happened. I’m saying that’s a claim. And I’m not saying it’s a good claim, but it does provide a few interesting points.

The passage often pointed to as evidence is in Ist Clement chapter 5. For those who don’t know, 1st Clement is one of the earliest Christian texts not found in the New Testament. It was written in the late first century. Because I’m a proud graduate of Reddit University, I often rely on the scholarly work of my peers. So this excerpt is pulled directly from Reddit in both the original Greek and English translation:

διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι ἐδώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους· Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ ἔριν Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κήρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν· καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὥτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἀνελήμφθη ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός“.

Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes. Peter, who because of unrighteous envy, not once or twice but endured many afflictions and having borne witness went to the due glorious place. Because of envy and rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize. Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders. Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place. He became a great example of steadfastness.”

Agreed that if Peter and Paul’s deaths were a result of state persecution from the Romans, as is often believed, this would be an odd way to describe it. Additionally, you can read a larger explanation of this theory here from Chrissy Hansen and there’s an academic paper floating around from a guy named David Eastman (that I didn’t read).

There’s a few reasons why I find this theory interesting. First off, in my view,, it provides a greater insight into early Christianity as socio/political movement which mainstream scholars often fail to explore. I agree with JD Crossan that the Jesus movement was a response to Roman power and authority. While there was little distinction between religion and politics in the ancient world, I still think when movements spring up against power…and there were many in Judea where the Jesus movement hailed from…that factions come along and turn on themselves, sometimes with violent consequences. That’s the nature of radical politics and I think first century Christianity would have been no different. Secondly, as Hansen pointed out, this solves a great mystery in the New Testament as to why there’s no account of the death of Paul (or Peter) from the author of Luke-Acts, with the implication being that in order to portray Christianity as a unified front, the author omitted the story altogether.

If true, then this puts the nail in the coffin of Jonathon Bernier’s earlier dating of the Gospels. If you recall, I reviewed Bernier’s book Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament a few years ago. I think I was intrigued by his arguments but felt that too much of it hinged on Luke-Acts being completed BEFORE the death of Paul which is Bernier’s explanation for why there’s no account in the New Testament. Today, I think Luke-Acts was certainly aware of Josephus, which would date it post-90CE, presumably well after Paul’s death. BUT, as Bernier’s arguments highlighted, the omission of Paul’s death (as well as the first person passages in Acts) need explanation from scholars, none of which I have found totally convincing.

But before I get on board with the explanation that Peter and Paul were killed by competing Christians, I require more evidence. An opaque passage in Ist Clement and a few omissions only hints at something. It doesn’t explain it. Which leads us to a huge problem in biblical studies particularly regarding the New Testament era: there’s too much we don’t know. The people leading this movement weren’t educated. Outside of Josephus and the NT itself, there’s little chronological account. Regarding the Jesus movement and archeological evidence, there’s been little slam dunk discoveries, if any. And the sad part is that there probably never will be. If any does appear, it would take at least a decade to authenticate and it would still be subject to controversy and debate. In short, none of this will be settled in our lifetimes.

So all of this is open to interpretation and speculation. The possibilities are endless. We know Paul was itinerant. Perhaps his ship sunk and all of his remains have been consumed the Mediterranean Sea. Maybe that’s why there’s no account; because no one knows what the fuck happened to him! Maybe Peter dropped dead of a heart attack in the middle of the desert? We just don’t know folks 🤷‍♂️

Probably never will.