ARTICLE INFOARTICLE HISTORYSubmitted: 11 January, 2026Accepted: 05June,2026PublishedOnline: 25June,2026CITATIONEndong C. (2026). From Scriptures to Screen:Representations of Ancient Rome in BiblicalTexts, Hollywood, and Africa’s Black JesusFilms. EthioInquiryJournalofHumanitiesandSocialSciences. Volume 5(1), 2026, 1-16.https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97OPEN ACCESSThis work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (CC BY 4.0).ETHIOINQUIRY Journal of Humanities andSocial Sciences has been accredited byFDRE Ministry of Education and indexed onAJOL.EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 1https://journals.hu.edu.et/hu-journals/index.php/erjssh, ISSN: Print 2790-539X, Online 2790-5403FULL LENGTH ORIGINAL ARTICLEFrom Scriptures to Screen: Representations of Ancient Rome inBiblical Texts, Hollywood, and Africa's Black Jesus FilmsFloribert Patrick C. Endong1∗�1Department of Performing Arts and Cinematography, Institute of Fine Arts, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon∗Corresponding Author’s email: floribertendong@yahoo.comAbstractIt is hard, if not impossible, to narrate Jesus’s story without mentioning ancient Rome,particularly its brutal imperialist culture in Israel. The gospel accounts of Jesus’s life, ministry,and death (particularly the segment dedicated to the passion of the Christ) provide discerniblehints of Roman presence and imperialism in ancient Judea. In line with this, most literalinterpretations of the gospel story (notably Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ) make ampleallusion to this Roman domination in Israel through evocative scenes like Jesus’s trial beforePontius Pilate and Herod, as well as scenes of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Ontheir own side, symbolic film adaptations that set Jesus’s story in African contexts tend to erase,downplay, or semiotize the aforementioned Roman presence and imperialism in ways that oftengenerate contextual, technological, or historical anachronisms as well as an over-simplificationof the story of Jesus. This understudied phenomenon is examined in this paper in light ofrelevant Black Jesus films produced by African cineasts. Specifically, this study uses semiotics,textual analysis of relevant Jesus films, and critical exploitation of secondary sources to answerthree principal research questions: how is ancient Rome’s imperialistic influence representedin both historical sources and biblical scriptures? How has this influence been representedin the literal interpretations of Jesus story? How have African radical adaptations of biblicalscriptures often portrayed or misrepresented Rome? The paper argues that through variousforms of symbolization and narrative ellipsis, African Jesus filmmakers hint at Rome’s imperialinfluence but generate various forms of cultural and technological anachronism that affect theaesthetics and coherence of their Black Jesus films. This implies that the application of AfricanCultural Hermeneutics and Black Liberation Theology in the production of the Black AfricanJesus film is bound to work only partially and lead to controversial results.Keywords: Black Jesus Films; Ancient Roman; Gospel Story; Literal Adaptation; Semi-otics.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 21 INTRODUCTIONFrom 753 BC to the 5th century AD, Rome’s influence fashioned many civilizations and directly shapedvarious ancient Mediterranean cultures, notably the Jews. According to historical sources, the empire,which encompassed much of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, annexed the land of Israelafter 63 BC through a military conquest led by Pompey the Great (Hall, 1997; Ludlow, 2017; Rothman,2019). Rome started ruling its new conquest indirectly through client kings, notably Herod the Great.These client kings owed their thrones to the Roman favor. Upon Herod’s death, the indirect system ofgovernment gave way to direct Roman rule as Judea (the land of Israel) became a Roman province underthe rule of Pontius Pilate. This new system of administration soon bred serious tensions among theJewish people (Bryan, 2005; Labbe, 2012; Windsor, 2004). The latter chaffed under Roman oppressionand longed for the coming of a Messiah (Jesus) to save them. This Messianism was in line with variousdivine predictions.To maintain order and stability in Judea, the Roman authorities often deployed severe brutality markedby cruel attitudes, such as bloody and excruciating quashing of resistance, the introduction of dreadfulpunishments (notably exposure and crucifixion), temporal suppression of religious freedoms, multi-form humiliation of the Jews, and the promotion of a personality cult that often conflicted with Judaisttraditions (Nadav, 2017; Peters, 2018; Trotter, 2017). In line with this, Brohm (2011) notes that “Romanculture was marked by power and pragmatism. Their legions were feared for their discipline and bru-tality [...] their laws provided stability but often favored the elite. Religion was pluralistic, drawing onthe pantheon of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and countless other deities, many of whom were borrowed fromGreece. Emperor worship emerged as a unifying force, demanding loyalty that placed Christians indirect conflict with Rome’s demands.”Thus, Rome’s political and cultural influence shaped the setting in which part of Jewish history tookplace. In tandem, the world of the Jewish people, as depicted in the New Testament, is under theshadow of Rome. From the edict that sent Joseph and Mary (mother of Jesus) to Bethlehem to PontiusPilate’s order concerning the crucifixion of Jesus and the soldiers who guarded the sepulcher of Jesus,the specter of the Roman empire is cast across the New Testament (the Bible). Therefore, it may beargued that Rome’s colonial influence constitutes the backdrop for the life, ministry, and death of JesusChrist in the gospel story. Understanding this Roman influence is key to grasping and adapting thegospel story into a Jesus film.Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to narrate Jesus’ story without mentioning ancient Rome. Thegospel accounts of Jesus’s life, ministry, and death (particularly the segment dedicated to the passion ofthe Christ) provide discernible hints of this Roman presence and colonization in ancient Judea. In linewith this, most literal filmic interpretations of the gospel story (notably Mel Gibson’s The Passion of theChrist) make ample allusion to this Roman colonization of Israel through evocative scenes like Jesus’strial before Pontius Pilate and Herod, as well as scenes of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.Symbolic film adaptations that set Jesus’s story in African contexts, on the other hand, tend to erase,downplay, or semiotize the aforementioned Roman colonization in ways that often generate cultural,technological, or historical anachronisms as well as an oversimplification of the story of Jesus. Thisunderstudied phenomenon is examined in this paper in light of relevant Black Jesus films produced byAfrican cineasts. Specifically, this study uses semiotics, textual analysis of relevant Jesus films, and acritical exploitation of secondary sources to answer three principal research questions: how is ancientRome’s colonial influence represented in both historical sources and biblical scriptures? How has thisinfluence been represented in the (Hollywood) literal interpretations of the Jesus story? How well havethey been portrayed in Africa’s Black Jesus films?2 METHODOLOGYThis study is descriptive and conceptual in nature. It examines the nature of the representation ofancient Rome in both written and filmic texts from a historico-aesthetic perspective. In particular, thispaper focuses on the nature of this representation of Rome in historical and biblical texts as well as insome postmodern filmic interpretations of the gospels’ accounts of the life, ministry, and death of JesusChrist. This study relies on two main data collection methods: documentary and textual analyses. Thedocumentary analysis part of the methodology involved the critical exploitation of relevant secondaryEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 3sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, anthologies, encyclopedias, work papers, book chapters,online materials, and published theses. The critical exploitation of these secondary sources helped setthe stage for the study and address the first two research questions of the study, namely, how is ancientRome’s colonial influence represented in both historical sources and biblical scriptures? How has thisinfluence been represented in the literal interpretations of Jesus story?The textual analysis part of the methodology was concerned with the semiotic analysis of relevant Je-sus films, mainly produced by African film directors. This study considered three African Jesus filmsthat adopt symbolic and metaphorical approaches in their interpretations of the gospel accounts of Je-sus’s life, ministry, and death. The films selected for the study include Mark Dornford’s Son of Man(2006)(Dornford-May, 2006), Tchidi Chikere’s Our Jesus’s Story (2020)(Chikere, 2020) and Collins Chi-diebe’s Cross of Jesus (2023)(Chidiebe, 2023). The films were selected based on their alignment withAfrican liberation and African cultural hermeneutics (which will be explained in greater detail in thesubsequent parts of this paper). The films were selected because of the attention they subtly or clearlyaccord to Roman imperialism during Jesus’s time. As mentioned earlier, the textual analysis of theaforementioned films was mainly driven by semiotics and inter-textuality. By definition, semiotics isthe study of signs and symbols in communication. It also refers to the use of sign systems for construct-ing and interpreting meaning. During the study, attention was given exclusively to signs contained inscenes that directly or subtly referred to Rome. Icons, indices, and symbols in the films that referenceRoman presence or imperial influence were considered. This study examined the extent to which theuse of these three signs enabled the construction of an image that reflects biblical and historical texts’representations of Rome.This interpretive tool (semiotics) was relevant for the study, given the films’ nature as symbolic andmetaphorical adaptations of the gospel’s account of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ. Inother words. The films’ adaptive approaches (symbolization and connotation) warranted the use ofsemiotics. The semiotic analysis of the films helped address the third and main concern of this study.This concern bordered on showing how the symbolic representations of ancient Rome enabled the films’alignment with the African liberation theology but gave way to anachronistic aesthetics in the AfricanJesus films.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThis study is anchored in two theories: Black Liberation Theology and African Cultural Hermeneutics.The former theory systemically contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help people of African de-scent overcome racial, political, economic, and social oppression (Barga, 2023; H. J. Cone, 1999; J. H.Cone, 1968, 1975; Cook, 2014). As Hayes (2000) puts it, “There can be no Black Theology which doesnot take the black experience as a source for its starting point. Black Theology is a theology of and forBlack people, examining their stories, tales, and sayings. It is an investigation of the mind into the rawmaterials of our pilgrimage, telling the story of “how we got over” (p.17). In the African context, BlackLiberation Theology seeks to give an African coloration to all aspects of Christianity. Its ultimate goalis to make Christianity relevant to African communities. According to theologian Emmanuel Martey(1993), the movement hopes to achieve an integrative vision for the African continent by welding to-gether the praxis of inculturation and liberation.Black Liberation Theology is based on two principal tenets: (i) a firm, but arguable, belief in the Africanorigins of Jesus and (ii) the rejection of the “whitewashing of Christianity” by Euro-centric theologians.While Black theologians such as Cleage (1968) and DeYoung (2009) have sought to demonstrate theblack origins of Jesus in some of their writings, many Black film directors - notably Jean Claude LaMare- have drawn on the Black theology concept in their Jesus films. By anchoring their Jesus films in BlackLiberation Theology, these postmodern film directors have sometimes provoked huge controversies.Jean Claude LaMare in particular, drew on the Black Liberation Theology in the production of hishugely controversial Colour on the Cross.African Cultural Hermeneutics (the second theory considered in this study) similarly seeks to contex-tualize Christianity. Also called “African Biblical Hermeneutics,” African Cultural Hermeneutics is anapproach to interpreting holy scriptures and ancient texts that principally considers the African context.It insists on reading the scriptures premeditatedly from an African standpoint, to make the word of Godculturally relevant to African nations. Adamo (2015) defines this cultural hermeneutic as an approachEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 4that “reappraises ancient biblical tradition and African world-views, cultures and life experiences, withthe purpose of correcting the effect of the cultural [and] ideological conditioning to which Africa andAfricans have been subjected in the business of biblical interpretation (p.59)”.Thus, African Cultural Hermeneutics aims to neutralize the excessive whitewashing of Christianity inAfrica and seeks to counter or address an old African frustration: the obligation (for Africans) to under-stand and practice the Christian faith in foreign or Eurocentric terms. Appiah-Kubi, 1981 expresses theaforementioned frustration. Drawing on Psalms 137:4, the theologian writes: “how can I sing the Lord’ssong in a strange land, in a strange language, in a strange thought, in a strange ideology” (p. viii). It goeswithout saying that the African Cultural Hermeneutics approach may enable African Jesus filmmakersin their culturally sensitive reinterpretation of the gospel accounts of Jesus’s story as well as the latter’sunderstanding of ancient texts about Rome’s imperial influence in first-century Judea. The two theoriesconsidered for the study (Black African Liberation Theology and African Cultural Hermeneutics) pro-vide tools to examine the theological orientation of the films under study and the aesthetic choices ofthe African film directors. The two theories provide a framework for examining how the film’s themesand style are tailored to reflect African histories, experiences, struggles, and contemporary realities.4 ROME’SIMPERIALRULEOVERJUDEA:INSIGHTSFROMHISTORICAL SOURCES AND BIBLICAL SCRIPTURESRome’s military conquest of Judea in 63 BC triggered a series of upheavals that affected the Jewish peo-ple in a mostly negative way. The conquest brutally took away many benefits the Jewish nation enjoyedas free people and ushered in an endless continuum of hardship, servitude, humiliation, and loss ofsovereignty for the Jewish people. In fact, from Pompey’s conquest to the total destruction of the cityof Jerusalem (in 70 AD), Rome interfered in the social, cultural, economic, and political affairs of Judeaon a grand scale (Bryan, 2005; Cook, 2014; Gambash, 2023; Windsor, 2004). Such interference stainedRoman-Judean relationships. The era of Roman domination was cataclysmic and gloomy for the Jew-ish people, so much so that Strauss (2025) describes it as explosive. According to the Jewish historian,the aforementioned Roman domination was marked by an “explosion of creativity and destruction”that disfavored the Jewish people (Strauss, 2025). The gloominess and volatility of this period of Ro-man domination could, perhaps, best be grasped after a brief comparison of the pre- and post-Romanperiods (See Figure 1).More than half a century before the Roman conquest, Judea enjoyed the status of the first independentJewish state. The country prided itself on its hard-won independence from Greco-Syrian overlords.It also prided itself on the expansionist moves of its native dynasts, the Hasmonean high priests, whoenlarged the country’s modest post-exilic borders to Solomonic proportions. Therefore, the Jewish peo-ple resented the sudden loss caused by Rome’s expansionist policies. They responded predominantlythrough various manifestations of discontent: unpredictable dissidence, constant rebellions, and Mes-sianism. They exhibited a level of resistance that had never been observed in other provinces of theRoman Empire (Bryan, 2005; Rothman, 2019) (. Under Roman rule, Judea morphed into a realm ofperpetual unrest and revolution. A succession of small uprisings culminated in an era of great warsagainst Rome, three of which include the Great Revolt, also known as the Jewish War, 66–74 CE; theDiaspora Revolt, 116–117; and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, 132–136. Apart from revolts, Messianism grewin popularity Labbe, 2012; Seeman, 2013; Strauss, 2025.In a bid to maintain stability and dissuade rebellions in its Judean province, Rome deployed the stickmore than it did the carrot. The imperial power did not hesitate to respond to Jewish dissidence withsavagery never seen in its repression of revolts in other provinces of its empire. A good illustration isRome’s salvage crushing of the Bar Kokhba revolt. In response to this revolt, the Romans committedmass crucifixion of the rioters and changed the name of the country from Judea (land of the Jews)to Syria-Palestinia, or simply Palestina (land of the Philistines). This savagery was unprecedented inmodern history. The Romans had never punished a rebellious province of their empire by changing itsname.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 5Figure 1: Palestine during the Time of Herod the Great and His Sons.Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-Jewish-religion-in-the-1st-centuryThus, the Jewish people’s constant rebellions against Rome were consequential. They led to the loss ofthousands of Jewish lives and the reduction of many survivors to slavery and exile. The rebellions alsocaused the relegation of Jews to the status of second-class citizens in their own country. Strauss (2025)affirms that the many bloody revolts put the future of Jewish survival in question, as they pushed Rometo destroy the Jewish capital of Jerusalem and its crowning glory, the Temple.Strauss (2025) writes,“Rome ended the daily sacrifices that marked the heart of Judaism and ruined the priesthood whocarried them out. Rome decimated the largest and most prestigious Jewish Diaspora community in theRoman Empire: the Jews of Egypt. As if to add insult to injury, the Romans changed the name of thecountry from Judea (‘land of the Jews’) to Syria Palaestina” (p.5). Seeman (2013) similarly observes thebrutality of Rome in the following terms:In 70 AD, as punishment for rebellion, the Roman legions burned and razed Jerusalem’s temple,the irreplaceable center of Jewish piety. Adding insult to injury, Jews everywhere were compelled totransfer their yearly contributions for the defunct sanctuary to the shrine of Rome’s state god, JupiterCapitolinus, an annual reminder of their subjugation. In the wake of two more failed revolts, Jewswere forbidden to set foot in Jerusalem, and for some time, their religious observances became thetarget of official repression. By the mid-2nd century AD, Rome had secured its place among Israel’soppressors. (Seeman, 2013)Rome’s crude approach to quenching revolts, dissuading dissent, and maintaining stability accounts forthe abysmal image it had in the Jewish popular imaginary. The specter of Rome cast a menacing shadowover the Jewish imagination. In this imagination, most Jewish people associated Rome with crudeviolence, oppression, immorality, and cultural pollution. (Seeman, 2013) explains that in Midrashictexts, Rome is constantly described in the role of Esau/Edom, Israel’s fraternal nemesis. Similarly, inapocalyptic texts, Rome is depicted as either Babylon, the wicked city par excellence, or the fourthEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 6kingdom in Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. This fourth kingdom is depicted asbeing a power that is as strong as iron, crushing and breaking all that stand in its way.It is against this backdrop that the story of Jesus is narrated in the Gospel. Manifestations of Rome’s op-pressive rule appear in many articulations of the gospel story, from Jesus birth to his death. For instance,Mary (mother of Jesus) and Joseph are compelled by an edict of Caesar Augustus, to go to Bethlehemfor the census (Luke 2: 4-7). Another order from Herod authorizes the massacre of children in the sameBethlehem, thereby fulfilling Jeremiah’s prophecy of sorrow in Ramah (Mathew 2:16). Elements hint-ing at the Roman census and oppressive taxation system are replete in the gospel story. For instance,Jesus is on some occasions, compelled to pay taxes on entering certain cities of the province (Mathew 17:24-27; Mathew 22: 15-12). At other points, Jesus is compelled to elude questions pertaining to Romantaxation. Using a coin that bears the image of Caesar, Jesus teaches his followers to render to Caesarwhat is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (Mark 12:17). Another illustration of the Romans’ oppres-sive presence is subtly hinted at by Barabbas dissidence. Actually, Barabbas is the notorious prisonerthe crowd (incited by the elders and chief priests) beseeches Pontius Pilate to release instead of Jesusduring Pilate’s Passover custom of freeing a prisoner (Mathew 27: 15-26). Barabbas is known to be aninsurrectionist who wanted to overthrow the Roman government and save the Jews.Perhaps the most obvious representation of Rome’s oppressive rule is found in the gospels’ accountof the passion of Jesus Christ (Matthew 26 to 28). The account reveals that Jesus was crucified underthe authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea. This governor finds no fault in Jesus’s actionsbut succumbs to the pressure of the crowd who want Jesus crucified for perceived blasphemy. DuringJesus’s crucifixion, the Roman soldiers apply Rome’s lex Puteolana (“laws of Puteoli”), which, in ancienttimes, regulated how crucifixions were to be carried out in the entire Roman Empire. In substance,this lex Puteolana stipulated that anyone sentenced to death by crucifixion must carry their cross (thepatibulum or horizontal beam) to the site of the execution and be scourged (with a flagellum) by a four-man squad. The victim should thereafter be nailed to their cross at a strategic, mostly public, place.This public cruelty, humiliation, and death served as public shaming and a serious warning againstany potential rebellions to Rome’s authority (Cook, 2014, 2019). The representation of Roman soldiersin all four gospels’ accounts of the passion of the Christ mention all the aforementioned aspects of theRoman penal system. Tuningen (as cited by Cook, 2019) establishes a synchrony between the Gospel ofJohn and historical texts on the Roman type of crucifixion. He notes that: When the magistrate (“public”crucifixions) has to execute an individual by crucifixion, the law mentions pitch and wax, which wereused to torture the victims with fire. In classical Latin texts, incidentally, the individual to be crucifiednever carried a crux (vertical beam or entire cross) but only the patibulum (horizontal piece). When acriminal carried the patibulum, the crux (vertical beam, in this case) was already in place. This impliesthat in John 19:17, Jesus only carried the horizontal member of the cross to Golgotha, since Pilate wouldhave followed Roman procedure (Cook, 2019)Thus, the gospel story bears various indices pointing to Rome’s brutality and oppressive rule in Judea,as well as the Jewish people’s abysmal perceptions of this Roman oppression. Gospel accounts representthe crucifixion itself as one of the strongest symbols of Roman domination and oppression in Judea.5 ROME’SIMAGEINLITERALFILMADAPTATIONSOFTHEGOSPEL STORYAncient Rome has an ambivalent image in the modern world. Indeed, while admired in some quar-ters for its military strategists and high level of administrative organization, the empire is popularlyregarded as a breeding ground for some of the cruelest popular cultures. These cultures range from ahigh dependence on slavery and gladiatorial combat to tyrannical rule and expansionist policies (Cu-furovic, 2018). Thus, popular fantasy associates this ancient empire with many contradictions. Posi-tive stereotypes suggest that ancient Rome exerted attraction because of its sage philosophers (notablyCicero, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius), influential poets, and cultural syncretism. The empire’s culturewas lauded for its richness and diversity. It blended elements from Greek, Etruscan, and other cultures.Roman cultural assimilation not only enabled a diverse culture but also fostered an inclusive society.Positive stereotypes also underline Rome’s egalitarian legal system, which codified laws applicable toall citizens (Brunet, 2002; Redonet, 2019). Such positive stereotypes also laud the empire’s architectureand road networks, which revealed the prowess of the empire’s engineers. Structures such as aqueductsand the Colosseum (see Figure 2) attest to the genius of Roman architects and engineers. In addition,EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 7ancient Rome is popularly praised for its urban planning pioneers, architectural innovations, militarydiscipline, and highly organized and efficient nature.Figure 2: A side view of the Colosseum. Source: https://italien.news/en/travel/lazio/rome/colosseum/Despite these positive stereotypes, the empire is simultaneously associated with a number of nega-tivisms, some of which are directly related to the Roman political and military systems. Gloomy stereo-types represent Rome as tyrannical and oppressive vis-à-vis non-Roman identities and ethnicities (Ley-mann, 2012; Redonet, 2019). Although credited for their discipline and efficacy, the Roman militaryand judicial systems are popularly associated with authoritarianism, brutality, and cruelty. The imperi-alist and expansionist policies of the empire have motivated critics to view ancient Romans as a peoplebent on subjugating and conquering other people. Similarly, the recrudescence of military conquests,harsh punishments (notably crucifixion), and gladiatorial games in ancient Rome push today’s societyto regard ancient Romans as brutal and violent people. Other negative stereotypes are rooted in issuessuch as Rome’s heavy dependence on slavery, its harsh and depersonalizing treatment of slaves, andits religious intolerance, particularly during its persecution of early Christians. Also worth mentioningare stereotypes that border on Rome’s sense of superiority over other cultures and those related to itsheavy taxation and rigid social hierarchy (particularly in its conquered provinces).The aforementioned imaginary around ancient Rome is simultaneously fueled by and reflected in worldcinema and television, from Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra (1963), through Scott Ridley’s Gladiator (2000), toFlinth’s Arn: Knight Templar (2007) and Spartacus (see Koutsourakis, 2021; Michelakis & Wyke, 2013;Potter & Gardner, 2022; Theodorakopoulos, 2010. A plethora of historical and mythological epic filmssuggests a fascination with ancient Rome. In line with this, Sam Leith notes that many Hollywood epicfilms set in ancient Rome vividly relay stereotypes about the empire’s moral decline, militaristic nature,and adoption of cruel entertainment. He writes, “The attraction of classical antiquity to filmmakershas never been hard to fathom: it has sex (from Theda Bara’s heavy-lidded Cleopatra in 1917, the ideaof the ancients being constantly ‘At It’ has persisted), violence (plenty of scope for gladiatorial hurlyburly and epic battles) and grand narrative. Greco-Roman antiquity offers filmmakers a giant out-ofcopyright myth kitty” (as cited in Elliot, 2014). Similarly, Blanshard and Shahabudin (2011) observe thatfilms such as Kurbrick’s Spartacus (1960), among other things, evoke the social and political status ofthe gladiator in ancient Roman society. The film raises the issue of the marginality of the gladiator, a“well-trained lump of meat at once revolting and alluring” Blanshard & Shahabudin, 2011. The filmEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 8also invites a two-fold focus of criticism: the gladiator as an illustration of ancient Roman entertainmentand as a slave who suffers socio-political discrimination and resists oppression. Thus, Spartacus evokesissues of social inequalities, slavery, moral decline, and oppression that plagued ancient Roman society.Literal adaptations of the gospel story – from Nicholas Ray’s The King of Kings (1961), and Stevens’s TheGreatest Story ever Told (1965) to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) – similarly relay many ofthe anti-Roman stereotypes mentioned above. Gibson’s film dwells on the oppressive, depersonalizing,and cruel facets of ancient Rome’s judicial system as well as the Romans’ sense of cultural superiority.Indeed, much of the excruciating violence depicted in the film goes a long way to evoke the many mythsabout Roman moral decadence, cruel punishment, and tyrannical rule in Judea. This can be illustratedusing at least four narrative and aesthetic resources from the film.First, Gibson deploys a series of uprisings imagery in his film that is reminiscent of the historical Roman-Jewish tense relations. The uprisings are depicted in the scenes of Jesus’s trial before Pontius Pilate andHerod. When Jesus is brought before the Roman governor (Pontius Pilate) for judgement, a college ofJewish priests and the crowd intensely pressure the Roman administrators to crucify Jesus. To the Jews,Pilate’s acceptance of Jesus’ crucifixion will serve as a sign of Rome’s respect for Judaist traditions. Pi-late’s hesitation and attempt to release Jesus after scouraging irritate the crowd and cause immediateJewish agitation, which in turn warrants muscular intervention from Roman soldiers. The violent re-pression of Jewish uprisings in these trial scenes is reminiscent of the tense Roman-Jewish relations inancient times. As many historians have underlined, these relations range from non-violent protests tomuscular rejection of Roman rule (Bryan, 2005; Seeman, 2013) . Thus, the inclusion of Jewish uprisingsin The Passion of the Christ follows more from Gibson’s interpretation of historical sources than fromhis understanding of scriptural evidence. In effect, the gospel accounts of Jesus’s trial before PontiusPilate and Herod do not mention the outbreak of Jewish uprisings.Figure 3: Jesus’s Trial before Pontius Pilate (Extract from Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ). Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGqfXksv7ASecond, Gibson alludes to stereotypes pointing to Roman moral decadence. This allusion is again madein the scene depicting Jesus’s trial before Herod. In fact, the Roman ruler in this scene is depicted as anEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 9effeminate person and a lover of sensual pleasures. His court is dominantly homosexual and engrossedin the same sensual pleasures. Through these indexes of voluptuousness, Gibson points to ancientJewish perceptions of Rome as a purveyor of sexual immorality and as Babylon par excellence. Throughthis scene, Gibson perpetuates the age-old Hollywood tradition of juxtaposing Rome’s sinfulness withJewish/Christian purity. A similar approach had earlier been observed in De Milles’s The Sign of theCross (1936), a film that represents ancient Rome dominantly through sex(ualized) imageries.Third, Gibson emphasizes the cruelty of ancient Roman punishment (see Figure 3). The film directordoes this through a horrifying depiction of Jesus’s flagellation and ultimate execution. This depictionshows the Roman soldiers’ savagery and quasi-animalistic attitude towards the physical body of JesusChrist. Such savagery is particularly seen in the soldiers’ tearing and lamination of Jesus’s flesh, theirrepetitive insults, their spilling of innocent blood, and finally, their gruesome nailing of Christ to hiscross. Thus, Gibson’s execution of Jesus graphically calls to mind the excruciating nature of the Ro-man institution of crucifixion. The film director’s resort to horror porn as an aesthetic resource helpsdepict the gloomy aspects of the ancient Roman legal system. This aesthetic choice is, in itself, aimedat foregrounding the negative social representations of Rome. Gibson’s film thus deconstructs his pre-decessors’ reductionist and euphemistic representations of ancient Roman punishment on one handand draws audiences’ attention to the significance of Jesus’s sacrifice on the way to Calvary. As notedby Gaye (2013), much artwork of Jesus’s crucifixion tends to portray a fairly sanitized version of thecrucifixion, even though its cruelty was well known in the ancient world. Jesephus (as cited in Finney,2013) highlights such cruelty when he associates crucifixion with the “most miserable of death.” Senecasimilarly evokes the gore of crucifixion as follows:Tell me, is death so wretched? He asks for the climax of suffering; what does he gain thereby? It ismerely the boon of a longer existence. But what sort of life is a lingering death? Can anyone be foundwho would prefer wasting away in pain, dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, ratherthan expiring once and for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, longsickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumors on his chest and shoulders, and draw the breathof life amid long-drawn-out agony? I think he would have had many excuses for dying even beforemounting the cross! (as cited in Gaye, 2013 , p.360)In the same line of thought, Welborn (2013) provides a summary of the barbarism and terror involvedin the Roman form of crucifixion. The summary hints at ways in which the culture of crucifixion notonly perpetrated a gloomy system of racial marginalization, as it mostly targeted slaves and non-Romancitizens, but also contributed to tarnishing the image of ancient Rome. Welborn (2013) states:Just outside the Esquiline Gate at Rome, on the road to Tibur, was a horrific place where crosses wereroutinely set up for the punishment of slaves. There a torture and execution service was operated by agroup of funeral contractors, who were open to business from private citizens and public authoritiesalike. There slaves were flogged and crucified at a charge to their masters of 4 sesterces per person[...] Varro mentions rotting corpses; Horace speaks of whitened bones; Juvenal describes the way inwhich the Esquiline vulture disposed of the bodies [...] An inscription from Puteoli confirms that suchplaces of execution, with crosses and other instruments of torture, were found throughout Italy andprobably outside the gates of every large city in the Roman Empire. At these places of execution, it isimpossible not to recognize the real reason for the silence of the upper class with respect to crucifixion:crucifixion was the “slaves’ punishment” (Welborn, 2013, p.136)It could therefore be argued that through his graphic portrayal of Jesus’s execution, Gibson questionsthe usual sanitized representations of crucifixion that do not fully capture the weight of Jesus’s sacrificefor, the eternal salvation of humanity. The film director favorably responds to historical sources thatpresent the crucifixion practice as one of Rome’s depersonalizing institutions and barbarism. Thus,critics who associate Gibson’s use of horror porn in The Passion of the Christ exclusively with an urge tofollow post-9/11 aesthetic currents and with antisemitism (Godowa, 2025; Hammer & Douglass, 2007;Ludemann, 2004) , are losing sight of the film director’s attempts to vividly depict the cruel cultures ofancient Rome. However, it should be emphasized that although punctuated with violence porn thatsymbolizes Rome’s brutality, Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ does not romanticize the suffering ofJesus or the cruelty of Rome.Fourth, Gibson raises the issue of the Romans’ sense of superiority over other races. This is sufficientlyevident in the crucifixion scene where the Roman soldiers charged with the duty of executing Jesus,EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 10despise the Jewish crowd of onlookers and at some point, use the term “Jew” as insult against Simonof Cyrene, a bystander who, upon request, volunteers to help Jesus carry his cross to Golgotha. Theinsult scene points not only to Rome’s consideration of Jewish culture (particularly religious traditions)as strange, but also to its habit of viewing its culture as superior to that of other peoples. Gibson’saesthetic choice here is therefore in line with many historical sources contending that, from Cicero toJulius Caesar, the Romans tended to portray foreign cultures through a lens of superiority and bias.They tended to disregard the humanity and worth of other cultures and likely considered stereotypesto promote Roman superiority. For instance, Cicero believed that the Jews and Syrians were naturallysuited for servitude (Seeman, 2013; Strauss, 2025; Woolf, 2021) .6 ROME IN SYMBOLIC AFRICAN ADAPTATIONS OF THEGOSPEL STORYAs mentioned earlier, Rome’s imperialistic rule over Judea shapes the way in which the gospel narrativeunfolds. Indeed, Rome – as an imperialistic force – appears at nearly every turn of Jesus story, althoughnot controlling God’s purpose (Brohm, 2011; Vocational Bible School, 2005). It is therefore difficult tonarrate the gospel story without mentioning the Roman agency. In line with this, it has often beenchallenging for film directors who set the gospel story in a purely African context to avoid or downplayRome in their culturally sensitive adaptations (Ahearne-Kroll, 2022; Baugh, 2011; Hammer & Douglass,2007). In this section, we focus on how these film directors’ choice to erase, downplay, or semiotizeRome’s imperialistic influences in their films often generates serious aesthetic issues.6.1 The Downplay Approach: Case of Collins Chidiebe’s “Cross of Jesus”(2023)Film directors who downplay Rome in African Jesus films usually deploy very loose adaptations of thegospel story. The African twists they bring to the gospel narrative most often overlook the Roman-Jewish power dynamics and generally simplify the plot to the life of a certain Black Jesus whose in-fluence in a local Black community affects power dynamics and whose spiritual mission and doctrinethreaten some local spiritualities and traditions. Simplifying the adapted narrative to a Christian vsnon-Christian god issue is, however, hardly coherent, particularly where the film director chooses tomaintain crucifixion (a symbol of Rome) as the way through which their Black Jesus is executed. Thiscan be illustrated using Collins Chidiebe’s Cross of Jesus (2023).Chidiebe’s film recounts the story of an Igbo young man called Kelechi who becomes Jesus’s incarnatethanks to a divine miracle. As Christ incarnate, he recruits twelve local apostles and embarks on anevangelical and salvific mission in his animist village. He authoritatively preaches the gospel, chal-lenges local inhumane traditions, performs all of Jesus’s miracles, and forgives the sins of repentantvillagers. He pulls crowds from near and far, including the close relatives of the village king (the Igwe).In the face of his big and consequential powers, the villagers guess that he is a powerful native doctor oran ancient prophet. Only a few village dwellers, particularly his apostles, see him as Christ, the messiahwhose coming has been prophesied by various oracles.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 11Figure 4: Jesus’s Trial before the Village King in Chidiebe’s “Cross of Jesus” (a symbolic representation of the gospels’ accounts of Jesustrial before Puntius Pilate. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5AQcS0JkwIKelechi’s growing influence in the village soon attracts both envy and the raft of the village elders.Viewing the young man’s influence as a threat to the village indigenous religion as well as to their ownpolitical influence in the community, these village elders connive to set and eliminate Kelechi. One ofKelichi’s apostles helps them (the village elders) for a handsome pay of 500 thousand Naira (Nigeriancurrency). The village elders kidnap Kelechi, drag him to a sham trial before the village king, and se-cure the execution of the young man. Chidiebe’s choice to eliminate cultural and historical references tothe ancient Roman Empire from his film (see Figure 4) is, to some extent, justified, given its alignmentwith Black Liberation theology and African Cultural Hermeneutics. By such an alignment, Chidiebe’sre-invented Jesus story is set in a modern-day Nigerian community, which, culturally speaking, is very-distant fromo Rome. Despite this fascinating aesthetic choice and adaptive approach, the film director’sdecision to omit Rome’s imperial influence in his film seems incoherent. Despite the omission, he de-ploys crucifixion (an ancient Roman punishment) in a film set in modern-day Igbo land. This choice,which is irrespective of the cultural specificities of Nigerian societies, relays the gospel’s gloomy repre-sentation of Rome, but creates some technological, contextual, and historical anachronisms that affectthe overall aesthetics of the film.By definition, an anachronism is a situation where elements of a film – say costumes, language, props/tech-nologies, and the like – are inaccurately placed in a historical setting (Gorfinkel, 2023) . Good examplesinclude the use of very sophisticated technologies (notably Android telephones) in a film set before theirinvention. In Chidiebe’s Cross of Jesus, the deployment of crucifixion (as punishment for offenses) isculturally and historically anachronistic to the Nigerian society depicted in the film’s narrative. This isso despite the fact that it serves as a strong symbol of Christianity and faith. Thus, Chidiebe’s reluctanceto deconstruct and adapt Roman crucifixion to an Igbo context affects the coherence of his plot and thegeneral aesthetics of his Black Jesus film.6.2 Semiotics as ApproachInstead of downplaying or eliminating references to Rome, some film directors semiotize or sublimatekey institutions of the Roman Empire in their African adaptations of the gospel story. A case in pointis Tchidi Chikere’s film Our Jesus Story (2020). This film follows the life of a young man called Tubiikawho is condemned to death in an African, visibly Nigerian, village. By chance, he escapes from thisEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 12village to a faraway city. A few years later, he converts to Christianity and receives a divine call to returnto his village and evangelize his brothers. Tubiika accepts the call. On returning to his village, he findsthe people still determined to kill him despite the long time that has passed since his escape. Contraryto the past, the converted Tubiika accepts his fate. He bears his cross in accordance with the divine callhe has recently received.Like Collins Chidiebe (in The Cross of Jesus), Tchidi Chikere embraces the two concepts of Black Lib-eration Theology and African Cultural Hermeneutics. This spurs him to eliminate all historical andcultural references to Rome from the plot of his film, except for the crucifixion. In tandem with this,his Black Jesus is finally executed by crucifixion and not by a traditional Nigerian/African method ofpunishment (as one would have expected). In addition to this aesthetic choice, the film director deploysRoman military costumes that are clearly reminiscent of Roman military discipline and the legal sys-tem (see Figure 5). Roman tunics are a symbol of ancient Rome (a phenomenon that is historically andculturally distant from sub-Saharan African societies). These costumes are also indicative of the factthat the film director seeks to evoke Roman’s agency in the crucifixion, albeit covertly. To some extent,this aesthetic choice breeds contextual and historical anachronisms.Figure 5: Flagellation Scene in Tchidi Chikere’s Our Jesus Story. Source: https://web.facebook.com/watch/?v=3693319020741834By maintaining the crucifixion in his film (see Figure 6), Chikere rather perpetrates a Hollywood lit-eralist tradition. This literalist approach consists of representing Jesus’s life in a way that is faithful tothe gospel account. This choice concerns only the part of Chikere’s film that deals with Jesus’ death.This choice is surprisingly contrary to the rest of his adaptation, which is symbolic. Mixing literalist andsymbolic approaches to adapting the gospel story is problematic: it makes Chikere’s film the product ofaesthetic cacophony. Thus, by superimposing cultural references to Rome on an African story, Chikeregenerates anachronisms and cacophonic representations.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 13Figure 6: The Crucifixion Scene in Tchidi Chikere’s Our Jesus Story. Source: https://web.facebook.com/watch/?v=3693319020741834One of the relatively effective ways of semiotizing ancient Rome in African Black Jesus films is viewedin Mark Dornford-May’s Son of Man (2006). Starring an all-African cast, the film gives a South Africantwist to the gospel accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. It tells the story of a religious leader(known as the Son of Man [Andile Kosi]) who grows his spiritual movement in the troubled fictitiousstate of Judea in southern Africa. This state is plagued by violence, poverty, and political corruption,among other social anomies. When a civil war breaks out in the state, Jesus urges his followers to forsakewarfare and cultivate nonviolence and peace. He also teaches them to embrace compassion, unity, andcollective dialogue, and exhorts them to flee from all forms of corruption. His teachings are so tolerableto the local oppressive and authoritarian leadership that no one in power sees him as a political threat.However, one of his disciples, Judas (Jim Hgxabaze), secretly meets with the state’s authorities andframes the Son of Man as a growing threat to society. This betrayal lures the authorities into incarcer-ating, interrogating, and torturing Jesus to force him to abandon his spiritual mission. Jesus resists theauthorities’ pressure but is unfortunately murdered, buried and later exhumed and nailed publicly toa cross for all citizens of the town to view his corpse. Later, Jesus resurrects and urges his followersto sing praises of God in homage to his movement. He also encouraged them (his disciples) to workfor the growth of the movement. Released two years after Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, May’svery acclaimed Son of Man is a symbolic representation of both the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s deathand the horrors of the apartheid regime in South Africa. The film juxtaposes the sufferings of Blackcommunities in apartheid South Africa with those of the Jewish people during Roman rule in ancienttimes.Although characterized by a number of contextual and historical anachronisms (see Ahearne-Kroll,2022; Griere, 2013; West, 2013), May’s Son of Man is intelligently set in apartheid South Africa. Thissetting makes sense as it enables the evocation of imperialism and racial marginalization, two vicesthat are comparable to Rome’s attitude towards the Jews in Jesus’s days. In many of its scenes, Son ofMan artistically compares the horrors of the apartheid regime in South Africa with the negativism andgloominess of Roman rule over the Jews. The film is replete with references to South African people’sexperiences with apartheid that directly point to Rome’s oppressive rule over the Jews in history andin the gospel accounts. A case in point is the gruesome execution of May’s Jesus through a process thatinvolves the latter’s arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, murder in secret, and crucifixion. Except forthe crucifixion, all the aforementioned violent approaches to intimidating and silencing anti-apartheidactivists were in force in pre-1994 South African society. These brutal and oppressive systems are com-parable to the Roman culture of dissuading rebellion and “high treason” against the empire. Hence,May added a posthumous crucifixion of Jesus. This crucifixion is visibly to make a symbolic associationbetween Black anti-apartheid activists in South Africa and the oppressed Jews in ancient Rome.Another reference to Rome in Son of Man is seen in the scene where Mary leads a group of Jesus’sfollowers in a toyi-toyi dance in protest at the brutality that led to the death of Jesus. It should be em-phasized that, as a dance/chant of resistance, toyi-toyi was constantly used by protesters in apartheidSouth Africa to defy colonialism and unjust policies. As noted by Adejumobi (2013), the dance wasEIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 14“employed by political and labor leaders and domestic workers and mine workers as part of their rev-olutionary struggle” during both the anti-apartheid and decolonization movements in South Africa(Adejumobi, 2013). By juxtaposing this form of South African resistance with the death of Jesus inhis film, May successfully evokes the many protests and uprisings deployed by Jewish rebels to protestRome’s oppression. Thus, May’s film suggests that in the same ways the Jewish people suffered oppres-sion from the Romans in the antiquity, so too Black communities in modern-days South Africa sufferedpolitical and cultural marginalization from the White-dominated apartheid regime.Thus, May’s films followed the two currents of Black Liberation Theology and African Cultural Hermeneu-tics current - as Chikere’s and Chidiebe’s film did - but doesn’t fail to allude to Rome’s imperial influence.The South African film runs contrary to the Nigerian films (Cross of Jesus (2023) and Our Jesus Story(2020)) that omit imperialistic influences from some exogenous forces which remotely can be associatedwith Rome. It attempts to depict the cruelty of the Apartheid regime, which can be compared to Rome’sbrutal conquest and imperialist rule over the Jews.7 CONCLUSIONSThis study examined ancient Rome’s depiction in both literal and symbolic/metaphoric adaptations ofthe gospel story. It is argued that most of these adaptations sensibly relay the gloomy representationsof Rome in the gospel accounts of Jesus’s death and resurrection. In literalist adaptations (notably MelGibson’s The Passion of the Christ), Rome is – in line with biblical texts – depicted as an oppressiveforce, a morally decadent culture, and even a barbaric force. This is achieved using various techniques.The same negative notion is suggested in symbolic Africa Jesus films, albeit via semiotics, subliminalcues, and cultural equivalence. This paper also showed how African Jesus filmmakers’ efforts to semi-otize and downplay Rome’s agency in their films usually lead to contextual, technological, and histor-ical anachronisms. These aesthetic issues (anachronisms) mostly – if not essentially – arise from theseAfrican filmmakers’ reluctance to deconstruct and radically adapt the crucifixion of Jesus followingAfrican cultural sensibilities.The arguments of this paper therefore imply that African makers of Black Jesus films should fully en-gage with African cultural specificities when they set their Jesus films in an African context. Mixingliteralist and symbolic approaches to film adaptation in the same Black Jesus film may lead to aestheticcacophonies and inconsistencies. Hence, this aesthetic choice may lead to relatively confusing repre-sentations of Jesus’s story in the film. This study focuses on the depictions of Rome in Black Jesus films.Future research may dwell on how both African and non-African audiences receive these filmic repre-sentations and how such representations fuel popular narratives about ancient Rome in other forms ofpopular culture in Africa.Funding InformationNo author received funding for the purpose of this researchConflict of InterestsThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interestReferencesAdamo, D. T. (2015). What is african biblical hermeneutics? Black Theology, 13(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1179/1476994815Z.00000000047Adejumobi, S. Y. (2013). Empire and utopia: “resurrecting” postcolonial visions and beyond in Son ofMan. In R. Walsh, J. L. Stanley, & A. Reinhartz (Eds.), Son of man: An african jesus film (pp. 69–87). Sheffield Phoenix Press.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 15Ahearne-Kroll, S. P. (2022). Jesus’s death as communal resurrection in mark dornford-may’s 2006 film“son of man”. Religions, 13(635), 1–13.Appiah-Kubi, K. (1981). Preface. In K. Appiah-Kubi & S. Torres (Eds.), African theology en route (p. viii).Orbis Books.Barga, T. (2023). African liberation theology: Agenda driven strategy for evangelization in the nigerianchurch. Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development, 6(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14569.67684Baugh, L. (2011). The african face of jesus in film: Part one: Valerio zurlini’s “black jesus”. Gregorianum,92(1), 89–114.Blanshard, A. J. L., & Shahabudin, K. (2011). Classics on screen: Ancient greece and rome on film. BristolClassical Press.Brohm, W. (2011). The romans: The ruling empire in the time of jesus and the early church [AccessedJanuary 5, 2026]. https://www.woody-brohm.online/the-romans-the-ruling-empire-in-the-time-of-jesus-and-the-early-church/Brunet, S. (2002). Gladiators and caesars: The power of spectacle in ancient rome (a review) [AccessedJanuary 8, 2026]. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002.08.25Bryan, C. (2005). Israel and empire: From maccabees to the war against rome. In C. Bryan (Ed.), Renderto caesar: Jesus, the early church and the roman superpower (pp. 25–38). Oxford University Press.Chidiebe, C. (2023). Cross of jesus [Director].Chikere, T. (2020). Our jesus story [Director].Cleage, A. (1968). The black messiah. Sheed; Ward.Cone, H. J. (1999). Risks of faith: The emergence of a black theology of liberation, 1968-1998. Beacon Press.Cone, J. H. (1968). A black theology of liberation. Orbis Books.Cone, J. H. (1975). God of the oppressed. Seabury Press.Cook, J. G. (2014). Crucifixion in antiquity: An inquiry into the background and significance of the new testamentterminology of crucifixion. Mohr Siebeck.Cook, J. G. (2019). Crucifixion in the mediterranean world (2nd). Mohr Siebeck.Cufurovic, M. (2018). Popular imagination vs historical reality: Hbo’s Rome and the practice of history.Public History Review, 25, 1–11.DeYoung, C. P. (2009). Coming together in the 21st century: The bible’s message in an age of diversity. JudsonPress.Dornford-May, M. (2006). Son of man [Director].Elliot, A. B. R. (2014). Introduction: The return of the epic. In A. B. R. Elliot (Ed.), The return of the epic:Genre, aesthetics and history in the twenty-first century (pp. 1–15). Edinburgh University Press.Gambash, G. (2023). Genocidal perspectives in the roman empire’s approach towards the jews: Frompart ii - the ancient world. In B. Kiernan, T. M. Lemos, & S. T. Taylor (Eds.), The cambridge worldhistory of genocide (pp. 330–352). Cambridge University Press.Gaye, S. (2013). Christ’s crucifixion: Reclamation of the cross. In F. O. Camille & T. A. Wayment (Eds.),With healing in his wings (pp. 55–79). Deseret Book.Godowa, B. (2025). A graphic redemption: A review of “the passion of the christ” by mel gibson (icondistribution 2003) [Accessed January 7, 2026]. https://www.equip.org/articles/a-graphic-redemption-a-film-review-of-the-passion-of-the-christ-by-mel-gibson-icon-distribution-2003/Gorfinkel, E. (2023). The future of anachronism. todd haynes and the magnificent andersons. Cinephilia,269(3), 153–167.Griere, S. D. (2013). ‘this is my world’! Son of Man (jezilei) and cross-cultural convergences of bible andworld. In R. Walsh, J. L. Staley, & A. Reinhartz (Eds.), Son of man: An african jesus film (pp. 23–33). Sheffield Phoenix Press.Hall, J. (1997). The roman province of judea: A historical overview. Masada and the World of the NewTestament, 36(3), 319–336.Hammer, R., & Douglass, K. (2007). Critical reflection on mel gibson’s The Passion of the Christ [AccessedJanuary 7, 2026]. https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/gibsonspassion.pdfHayes, D. L. (2000). James cone’s hermeneutic of language and black theology. Theological Studies, 6,609–631.Koutsourakis, A. (2021). Epic cinema: Defining our terms. JCMS: Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, 61,51–74.Labbe, G. (2012). L’affirmation de la puissance romaine en judée. Les Belles Lettres.Leymann, M. C. (2012). Classics on screen: Ancient greece and rome on film [Accessed January 8, 2026].https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012.07.07/EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97

EthioInq.J. Hum. and Socia. Sciences (2026), vol.5, Issue. 1, 1-16 16Ludemann, G. (2004). Some critical comments on mel gibson’s movie “the passion of christ” in the lightof historical criticism [Accessed January 7, 2026]. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/Ludemann_PassionLudlow, J. W. (2017). The first jewish revolt against rome. In Greco-roman background of the new testament(pp. 231–242). Cambridge University Press.Michelakis, P., & Wyke, M. (2013). The ancient world in silent cinema. Cambridge University Press.Nadav, S. (2017). Judea under roman domination: The first generation of statelessness and its legacy. Society ofBiblical Literature.Peters, S. (2018). Judaea-palaestina [Accessed January 5, 2026]. https://www.unrv.com/provinces/judaea.phpPotter, A., & Gardner, H. (2022). Ancient epic in film and television. Edinburgh University Press.Redonet, F. L. (2019). Ancient rome on the screen: Spectacle, heroes, sex, violence and a bit of history.The Present of Antiquity, 1476, 65–84.Rothman, B. (2019). Glory and decline: Some causes of the roman conquest of judaea. TCNJ Journal ofStudent Scholarship, 21(1), 1–6.Seeman, C. (2013). Rome and judea in transition: Hasmonean relations with the roman republic and the evolutionof the high priesthood. Peter Lang.Strauss, B. (2025). Jews vs rome: Two century of rebellion against the world’s mightiest empire. Stanford Uni-versity Press.Theodorakopoulos, E. (2010). Ancient rome at the cinema: Story and spectacle in hollywood and rome. StanfordUniversity Press.Trotter, R. M. (2017). Judea as a roman province. In Greco-roman background of the new testament. Cam-bridge University Press.Vocational Bible School. (2005). Is “the passion of the christ” torture horror? [Accessed January 7, 2026].https://www.equip.org/articles/a-graphic-redemption-a-film-review-of-the-passion-of-the-christ-by-mel-gibson-icon-distribution-2003/Welborn, L. L. (2013). The culture of crucifixion and the resurrection of the dispossessed: The interpel-lation of the subject in the roman empire and paul’s gospel as ‘truth event’. In W. Blaton & H.de Vries (Eds.), Paul and the philosophers (pp. 127–140). Fordham University Press.West, G. O. (2013). The Son of Man in south africa? In R. Walsh, J. L. Staley, & A. Reinhartz (Eds.), Son ofman: An african jesus film (pp. 2–22). Sheffield Phoenix Press.Windsor, R. R. (2004). Judea trembles under rome. Windsor Golden Series.Woolf, G. (2021). Rome: An empire’s story. Oxford University Press.EIJHSS Endong C.(2026) https://doi.org/10.20372/5394na97