It seems clear these days that the whole purpose is to be controversial, and if they can squeeze in some philosophical message that only the most artsy-fartsy people are able to read into it, so much the better.
But really, of all things about Jesus, his sexuality has got to be one of the least important. That has nothing to do with his IM. The concept behind the play seems to be remarkably shallow. Though I have noticed that anything portraying Jesus with human traits and vices is immediately condemned. As if the son of God was human!
If, in some dramatic break with archaeological tradition, we were actually able to find evidence of Jesus' homosexuality, it would not make any difference. That's the kind of revelation that can be ignored as easily as a picket line can be organised.
Then again, judging a play, film book or whatever before you have even been to see it is one of the stupidet things you can possibly do. Who knows, there may be a chance, however slight, that there are some novel and valuable insights in the play.
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|