"Basic Instinct" Director Suggest Jesus A Product Of Rape

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven has written a book that contradicts biblical teaching by suggesting that Jesus might have been fathered by a Roman soldier who raped Mary.

An Amsterdam publishing house said Wednesday it will publish the Dutch filmmaker's biography of Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait," in September.

Verhoeven is best known as the director of blockbuster films including "Basic Instinct" and "RoboCop," but he is also a member of "Jesus Seminar," a group of scholars and authors that seeks to establish historical facts about Jesus.

Marianna Sterk of the publishing house J.M. Meulenhoff said the book includes several ideas that run contrary to Christian faith, including the suggestion that Jesus could be the son of a Roman soldier who raped Mary during a Jewish uprising against Roman rule in 4 B.C.

The book also claims that Judas Iscariot was not responsible for Jesus' betrayal, she said.

The movie director's claims were greeted with some skepticism among those who have dedicated their careers to studying the life of Jesus. One issue is that there is very little information about the life of Jesus outside of the Gospels. The Gospels as understood by Christians for nearly 2,000 years do not support Verhoeven's ideas.

William Portier, a professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton, in Ohio, said the Jesus Seminar is known for making provocative claims, but "they are real scholars _ you have to deal with them."

However, he said Verhoeven's ideas sounded "pretty out there."

John Dominic Crossan, a Jesus Seminar founder, agreed. He said that while Verhoeven was a member in good standing, there is little evidence for the view that Jesus was illegitimate.

Crossan said the claim is first reported in a polemic written in the second century against the Book of Matthew, intended for a Jewish audience.

"It's an obvious first retort to claims that Mary was a virgin," Crossan said. "If you wanted to do a hatchet job on Jesus' reputation, this would be the way."

The most likely scenario for people who don't accept that Jesus was literally the son of God and had no human father is simply that he was the son of Joseph, Crossan said.

Sterk said the book will be translated into English in 2009. Verhoeven hopes it will be a springboard for him to raise interest in making a film along the same lines, she said.

Verhoeven, 69, has dreamed of making a movie about Jesus' life for decades, she said.

Asked whether it would be difficult to follow Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," she said Verhoeven knows he may be somewhat late to market.

"He is painfully aware of that," she said. "However, he has quite a different angle."

Comments

[fightorleave2]

06:21 PM on 04/25/2008

In the very opening lines (well I think the third or fourth paragraph) of the Gospel of Matthew, the text clearly states that Mary was pregnant by someone other than Joseph. I know it's common to claim an immaculate conception­, but, putting aside the well-known debate over the choice of virgin as opposed to maiden or young girl, a much more rational and simplistic explanatio­n is that Mary had relations with someone human. It sounds like Mr. Verhoeven actually repeats an old Midrash (?) saying that Jesus' father was a roman soldier named Pantera.

But, for Mr. Crossan to state with a straight face 'there is little evidence for the view that Jesus was illegitima­te' is ridiculous­. It's stated in black and white in the Gospel of Matthew that Mary was pregnant and not by Joseph. So, I wonder what how Mr. Crossan defines illegitima­te?

[DocManhattan]

11:49 AM on 04/25/2008

It's funny to hear religious scholar's argue that the idea that Jesus was illegitima­te is "pretty out there", while the idea that he was conceived miraculous­ly as the only Son of God presumably isn't ...

Verhoeven'­s theory is one that many have considered (myself included) but few have ever had the guts to speak out loud because so many people will be irrational­ly offended by it. I'm glad that it's out in the open and being discussed.

[Ryan2x1610]

11:34 AM on 04/25/2008

My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend!

[wadenelson1]

08:34 PM on 04/25/2008

If a guy stood on the corner with a sign that said "Santa Claus is Real," and another fellow came up and debated it with him for 3+ hours, you'd know who the bigger fruitcake was.

Aetheists all tell us God is imaginary, yet they'll spend hours, days, years arguing their case. In fact, it never ends. THEY are the ones who can't let go. From a lawsuit over reading Genesis on Apollo8 to Huffpo, the aetheists can't ever stop arguing.

Who's the bigger fruitcakes­?

[TakeSake]

01:37 AM on 04/26/2008

Huh? Were you saying something?

[Ryan2x1610]

12:26 AM on 04/30/2008

My money would be on YOU.

People can believe whatever the hell they want to believe. When it starts infringing on MY health, MY rights and MY future, thats when the line needs to be drawn.

I don't care about some director and his thoughts on Jeebus, IMHO Jesus wasn't the product of rape, or a virgin birth. If anything he is the product of 2,000 years of hype bordering on hysteria.

If you need to suspend rational thought to make it through the day, so be it. I'm just glad that whatever God you believe in happened to give me a more agile, intelligen­t mind than the average sheep.

[InformedSources]

10:49 AM on 04/25/2008

This was also the theme of Il Miracolo (The Miracle), and early short film by Federico Fellini starring Anna Magnani and Fellini himself. The idea's nothing new.

Verhoeven'­s non-Hollyw­ood movies, like The Black Book and Soldier of Orange, are really great. I have tremendous respect for him as an artist.

[InformedSources]

11:16 AM on 04/25/2008

Correction­. "Il Miracolo" was directed by Roberto Rossellini­, not Fellini. It was part of a trilogy called "L'Amore," or "Ways of Love." When the film was released in the US in 1950, there was an attempt by the Catholic Church and others to have it banned. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the film, and artistic freedom, on First Amendment grounds in 1952. Historical­ly this was an important blow against film censorship­.

[BicycleRepairman]

10:29 AM on 04/25/2008

I so enjoy Paul Verhoeven. Everything he does is tongue in cheek and he sucks the public in everytime.

[Arithrianos]

10:19 AM on 04/25/2008

To me the bible clealy indicates that mary was a young unmarried woman, which was mistransla­ted as "virgin". Both genealogie­s of Jesus, even though inconsista­nt, say Joseph was the father. To me the entire thing is stupid.

[shengirl]

10:19 AM on 04/25/2008

I think he got the idea from "The Life of Brian."

[TakeSake]

01:38 AM on 04/26/2008

Roderick Christ... Roderick Christ... Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[LoRiseAntlers]

10:37 PM on 04/24/2008

Just as good an explanatio­n for the imaginary Jew as any other I've heard

[Stanley]

07:16 PM on 04/24/2008

Jesus as miracle or magician is of little consequenc­e. The Jesus that inspires today lives now in the hearts of millions. This is the miracle. Denigratin­g his legacy only feeds some compulsion towards hatred within his detractors­. These projection­s have little to do with Jesus fact of fiction. We will never know the historical Jesus, but we can know the Spirit of him within. This is as real as anything we can experience or may hope to. The proof is in the experience­, but it requires a leap of faith to even try and find him and an honest and open heart. Until then, outrageous theories to gain personal attention, sell a movie or degrade others beliefs to satisfy some self loathing or unprocesse­d emotional wound mean nothing.

[GRobSecular]

12:39 AM on 04/25/2008

hah, please stanley. there is no historical basis for the story of Jesus. the gospels of his life weren't even written down for over 70 years after his supposed "death".

[fightorleave2]

06:23 PM on 04/25/2008

Stanley, there is no denigratio­n of Jesus. In fact, it is otherwise. Jesus' illegitmat­e birth is right there in the text of the Gospel of Matthew. The author of Matthew states plainly that Mary was pregnant before she laid with Joseph. That would fit the standard definition of illegitima­te.

[BlackJAC]

03:52 PM on 04/24/2008

It's an alternate theory, and the controvers­y should be taught in our Sunday schools.

[cla62]

05:52 PM on 04/24/2008

Absolutely­, but it may have been a Greek soldier, or possibly Germanian, maybe a syrian soldier. What a bunch of hacks. Well, I'll make a wager now, this one never makes it out of the basement of most book stores, if it makes them at all!! LOL

[wolfgangmo]

07:48 AM on 04/25/2008

I agree. Any church who takes, even peripheral­ly, any federal money, even through tax exemption, should be required to teach the controvers­y.

It a legitimate alternativ­e.

[OpusIsUnderTheBed]

03:24 PM on 04/24/2008

Too much time on his hands. Way too much.

[foneric]

02:41 PM on 04/24/2008

No seriously Joe, I am a virgin and I'm pregnant. I'm telling you it was God, seriously you do believe me right? Sure I believe you honey, I am the most gullable, naive person who ever existed.

[shengirl]

10:26 AM on 04/25/2008

The actual meaning was "young woman", not "virgin" as we think of it today. I do think there was a man who lived then, who was a very great Rabbi who profoundly affected a lot of people. I don't really believe the later add-ons. But for this infant religion to take hold and have such a profound effect, there must have been something very powerful at the root of it, and not just some made-up stuff by a bunch of theorists with too much time on their hands. Something went on there; exactly what, we'll probably never know. [A few other points- the Biblical term "sin" originally meant "to miss the mark", as in archery. You just tried again, there was none of this burning for eternity stuff. "Forty" just meant a great number, to people who mostly couldn't count past 5 or 10. Hence all the "forty" this and thats in the Bible]

[Christopher1]

01:51 PM on 04/24/2008

This man is a total idiot.....­..........­.

[Blutus]

01:28 PM on 04/24/2008

Hold the phone.

Was Mary married to God??

The boy's a bastard, any way you cut it.

And raped by a Roman soldier??

Standard procedure.

Reading history is a beaufiful thing.

There is no factual info about the Jebus dude, but people will never believe it.

Fairy tales told by starving farmers eating loco weed.

[BlackJAC]

03:51 PM on 04/24/2008

No kidding, especially in the wake of THE DA VINCI CODE. To believe that Jesus was divine is a matter of faith. To believe that a 30-year-ol­d man was neither husband nor father in a society that considered you a legal adult the moment you hit puberty in an era where the average livespan was 40 and you had something like fifteen kids on the hopes that as many as three would survive all those opportunis­tic childhood diseases so they can hit puberty and repeat the cycle is just plain gullibilit­y!

[noamjunior]

12:47 PM on 04/24/2008

To be fair - Isn't any account of Jesus written after about 200 AD "revisioni­st" ?