After Episode 4 of the drama, we invited viewers to submit questions to the producer Nigel Stafford-Clark and writer Frank Deasy. Here are the selected questions with the responses from Nigel and Frank. They also answered questions submitted after Episode 2.
Nigel Stafford-Clark
Why when Jesus dies was there no darkness over the land, and the temple did not split and the earth did not shake? We did not see Jesus healing the soldier's ear either. Why omit these crucial episodes?
Throughout the development process we were faced with many difficult decisions about what to include, particularly where the Gospels differ in the detail of their accounts, as they often do.
For example, only one refers to Jesus healing the ear of the High Priest's slave, although they all refer to it being cut off. Our choice was to go with the majority, showing the fight but focusing on Jesus' renunciation of violence.
The Gospel accounts of Jesus' death range from John, who makes no mention of any of the events referred to above, to Matthew, who has them all and, in addition, the bodies of saints leaving their tombs and entering Jerusalem.
Our decision was to focus on the reality of Jesus' suffering, his extraordinary ability to think of others even then, the moment when he almost loses faith and the moment of transcendence when he reaffirms it.
You may well disagree, but to us these felt closer to the heart of the story than thunderstorms and earthquakes.
I really enjoyed the first three episodes but was very disappointed by the Resurrection. What was the point in having those other two actors purporting to be Jesus?
I've always been fascinated by the Gospel accounts of the three main Resurrection appearances.
In the first two (Mary Magdalene outside the tomb and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus) it's made clear that they don't physically recognise the figure who addresses them as Jesus. Given that they had been with Jesus 24/7 for three years this would suggest that it was not physically the same person.
At the end of their encounter, the two disciples experience Jesus' physical presence for a brief moment, and he then appears as himself to all the disciples together.
We thought long and hard, and decided that the best way to present the Resurrection was just as the Gospels describe it.
If you refer to John 20 v14-18 and Luke 24 v13-31, you'll see that we're faithfully reflecting on the screen what is described in their accounts.
We then leave it up to each member of the audience to respond to and interpret these events in his/her own way.
Why was the crucifixion changed? We have always been led to believe that the nails went into the hands not half way up the arm and that the legs were straight not bent as portrayed in the production.
There's a special section on The Passion website which features a wide-ranging discussion of our depiction of the Crucifixion.
We were guided by the discovery of the crucifixion victim known as Jehohanan, who dates from the same period and whose remains clearly indicate that he was crucified with his legs bent sideways.
We were also influenced in our thinking about the nails going through wrists rather than hands by a weight of medical evidence and the fact that the word translated as "hand" in the Bible is actually not the word for "hand" alone, but one that refers to the whole wrist and forearm.
The traditional depiction of crucifixion was established by medieval and renaissance religious painting. An interesting footnote to the debate is that on the Shroud of Turin the blood marks are clearly on the wrists, rather than the palms.
Was there any deliberate attempt, in certain scenes, to 'reference' or challenge other film or TV versions of this story?
No, we had a very clear idea of the film that we were making and what we wanted to achieve with it - and we didn't concern ourselves with how others had approached particular scenes or facets of the story.
Well, actually that's not quite true. We did remove several things from the script that we felt might carry an echo of Life of Brian. Ironically, that was the only other version of this story that had made an attempt to put it into a historical and social context, as we were doing.
What was the biggest highlight - and lowlight - of filming in Morocco?
The lowlight was probably our first day at Golgotha. The previous week we had been washed out of the Garden of Gethsemane by an unexpected flash flood, and we had painfully fought our way back on schedule over the next six days thanks to a superhuman effort from director Michael Offer, the cast and crew.
We went up to our Golgotha feeling nervous but buoyant. The next three days would be physically and emotionally gruelling, but we had survived what would surely be our only major weather catastrophe, given Morocco's normally dependable sunshine. As we prepared to raise the cross for the first time, angry black clouds started to boil up overhead, tents flew across the landscape and within minutes we were in the middle of a storm of biblical proportions. It felt like the Book of Job.
My personal Moroccan highlight was off-set. Driving back through the foothills of the Atlas mountains one evening, the thunderclouds that had been plaguing us again suddenly parted and great beams of light lanced down to illuminate the mountain tops. As I turned each corner of the steep and winding road, another peak would be lit, like some celestial son et lumiere being staged for my benefit. It was extraordinarily beautiful, and carried with it a sense of both grandeur and serenity that I will never forget.
Has making this excellent and inspiring production affected you personally in some way?
I don't think it's possible to spend two years of your life intimately involved with a story as powerful as this without being affected by it. This is a story that compels you to look beyond yourself, whatever your beliefs, and I think all of us involved have been changed by the experience in some way.
Thanks to Maarten de Pous of the Netherlands, Charlotte of Bath and Chris Parsons of Basingstoke, among others for their questions
Frank Deasy
I would like to ask why Jesus' last words, as recorded in John 19:30, are omitted? "It is finished" is a phrase which bears special significance among believing Christians. As such a major piece of scripture, from which springs vast amounts of Christian theology, how can it be left out?
As you say the phrase "It is finished" comes from John which was written nearly 100 years after the events it describes. As a result it is the most theologically refined of the Gospels and you have to understand as I come to this as a dramatist the phrase carries within it this level of detachment.
I don't agree that I have omitted the line but reshaped it. "Father I have loved you with all my heart" contains for me the right note of finality - the execution of his father's will - but comes from deep within the suffering human and from within the first commandment.
When I think about this line in the abstract I appreciate your point but when I replay the scene I feel a powerful connection with the character of Jesus and most of all his journey - and in the end that's what I choose to trust.
You omitted the fight leading to the severing of the guard's ear and Jesus' miracle of healing him and rebuking Peter: "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword". Why?
This was a decision we made swiftly and easily not because of any agenda but for formal film making reasons.
By the time we arrive at Gethsemane the basic conventions or "rules" by which we are telling the story have been established - essentially naturalistic storytelling - to so dramatically break these conventions at that point would knock the audience right out of the film and draw attention to itself in a way that would be self defeating. It would feel a bizarre departure at best and, more likely given the cinematic culture we live in, risible.
Jesus' resurrection on the other hand happens over time and as part of the unfolding story, which, crucially, allows other characters to question and discuss what they are seeing.
Just out of interest why didn't Jesus go to see Herod?
Time constraints, in terms of the scenes themselves and the space to fill in yet another historical / political backdrop.
In the Crucifixion scene Mary's response was quite heart-rending. What did you imagine her role to be in that scene?
For Mary I saw the moment when she cries out "No" to Jesus' cry of abandonment as the climax of her journey from resisting God's will for her son to strengthening him to carry it out.
The Resurrection is shown to be pretty unequivocally miraculous. At what stage in your writing did you decide to go for this particular interpretation?
What I really enjoyed writing was the disciples reactions which to me are no different from the responses we would have today and hopefully are the various questions being considered by the audience. I don't think any of us involved in the production see our jobs as supplying answers but more bringing questions to dramatic life.
There was a very intriguing and emotional scene at the end of episode 1 where Jesus appears to forgive Judas 'in advance'. What exactly did you imagine as the 'sub-text' there?
The intention was two fold: to dramatise the tension between a set of divinely ordained events and the existence of free will. Jesus urges Judas to exercise his free will - but at the same time sees his own destiny confirmed in Judas's reaction to the question "what do you see in your heart?" A second intention was to dramatise the possibility of redemption and forgiveness for Judas.
Thanks to Linda Standing of London, Peter Westbury of Bristol, Charlotte of Bath and Andrew Diaper of Witham, among others for their questions.
© MMIX