If there is a negative perception of Jews in this movie then it must also be portraying Jesus and the apostles negatively. I don't know how many times in the screenplay it was mentioned that Jesus and the apostles were Jewish. I saw the film and I disagree with Gibson's portrayal of pontius pilate as a wimp. But I don't doubt that the Jewish religious leadership most likely wanted Jesus dead since he was a threat to their power.

Saying that the Jews killed Jesus is like saying that the Christians wanted to get rid of Martin Luther since he went against the church. Or that the Christians wanted to kill Galileo or some of the other scientists because they went against the dogma of the church.

You will never get a film 100% accurate to the gospels since there are differences between them.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with your comments. You enter the discussion with a bias against both Mel and the film and, not surprisingly, find the antisemitism/Jewish attacking content you desire. However, nothing in the film in the depiction of the Jewish people, the Jewish leader or the Romans is contrary to the scriptural texts. So you've placed Mel in no win situation. If he is true to the gospel texts, he's antisemitic or protraying the Jewish people negatively. If he alters the text and reduces the perceived negative roles for the Jewish participants, he is no longer scripturally accurate.

Personally, I see this much the same as the people who claim there are homoerotic subtexts to the Lord of the Rings movies/texts. However, as with LOTR, the only way you can find that subtext is by inserting it yourself. It is not the author's intent, nor the film-makers. The antisemitic presentation of Passion plays in history has less to do with the source of the materials (the gospels) than it does with standard human stupidity.... Only by inserting that nonesense into this context can you claim any antisemitism. There is none in the fim itself.

You approach this film with a preconceived notion that Mel is trying to create a negative picture of the Jewish nation. That he has an "agenda" beyond the presentation of a scripturally focused visual presentation of the passion of Christ. I deny the existence of such a dark agenda....

I think Mel did a wonderful job in showing that the Jewish leaders, the Jewish mob, the Roman leaders, the Roman guards and the actions of Christ's own followers all played a part in the story, but ultimately Christ elected the path of the cross and no guilt is assigned to anyone in Mel's picture, let alone a blood-guilt debt against the whole nation of Israel past and present.

As I've stated in other threads, given your diametrically opposed starting point (ie. your biases), it is doubtful anything I say can change your mind. But I think you are grasping at shadows trying to force this film into your preconceived dark agenda conspiracy....

I think that another important detail that, frankly, I am stunned nobody seems to mention, is the flashback that Gibson includes from Jesus' sermon on "The Good Shepard".Now, if you have seen the movie, then you know that there were not many parts of Jesus' life that were shown prior to his capture in the garden, so I would say that Gibson was probably pretty picky about what messages to include during those flashbacks. To include this psssage in particular, that blatantly says "It is my choice to die . . . it is nobody elses choice," seems to indicate, to me, at least, that Gibson was not pinning the "blame" for Jesus' death on anybody but Jesus.

The author of that article seems to be forgeting that there are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional texts that the Catholic church considers cannonical. Of course The Passion of the Christ contains things above and beyond what is described in the bible, it takes its influence from these other cannonical Catholic works.

And for that reason I am a bit dismayed by how this film has been embraced by Protestants. Many protestants feel SO strongly about this film yet it's so damn Catholic. I liked the film, but as a Protestant I dismiss it as mostly being to much over-adorned, gaudy, papist crap. Too much pomp and circumstance and bloody sacrements.

And besides, I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

So lighten up everybody.

This type of argument is just ridiculous. First, using the term bias is an assumption that you have no grounds for making. I used the term 'subjective experience' in place of your term (bias) becuase the conotations with this word are quite different. EVERYONE views things through their own subjective prespective, this is a philisopgical point that cannot be argued, but this point does not preclude us from arriving at educated and informed opinions. As I said before, this is assumed, and as long as the people who are entering the discourse attempt to understand their own persepctive (as well ast the other person's) and if they do this in an intelligent manner, the conversation has the potential to be enlightening.

But to claim that the person you are debating with is Biased and therefore everything they say is a result of what they desire to find is absurd (that is, if it is your intention to continue communications with this person). With this type of reasoning I could watch a Nazi propagandist film and come away with the opinion that it is anti-semitic, but you would decry that I am biased and only looking for anti-semitic elements. Let me also make it clear that I never said Mel's film is anti-semitic, so assuming that that is what I was looking for is erroneous (I have stated that my view is the fim portays the Jews of the time in an overly negative light and that this portrayal seems to be largely based on Mel's religious beliefs and his reliance on extra-biblical-anti-semitic writings).

Do you believe that everyone who comes to the conclusion that there may be a negative portrayal of Jews in this film is simply biased and looking for this content? If that is so, then their is no debating this issue with you, because through a bias of your own, you are unable to see this movie through the eyes of others. Futhermore, you make a rather large assumption about me as an individual and what my preconceptions were about Mel and this movie.

This is just plain wrong. I suggest you reread this (and the other) threads on this matter, because I am getting tired of posting the same information over and over again (as I am sure other people are too). But I assure you there are instances where Mel has taken liberties with the way the scripture portray the Jewish people of the time. If he were being true to the Gospel texts, as he claimed to be, there would have been no controversy because the Gospels are not considered by most people to be anti-semitic in nature. However, as I stated many times before, it is possible to take selective parts from the gospels (while remaining true to them) and make very different movies, that portray people in very different ways.

I agree with you on the first point (although I think that labeling it as 'human stupidity' minimizes and simplifies the processes that are actually occuring). As I said before, the Gospels are not anti-semitic, but I disagree that there is none of this 'nonsense' in this film. Considering the extra-biblical sources alone is enough to cause concern about this movie.

Being concerned and sensitive to the fact that there may be a negative portrayal of the Jewish people in this film (based on many factors that were considered before viewing the movie) does not mean that I was unable to see the film for myself and able to arrive at my own judgement. Why on earth would I want Mel to make this movie in such a way? You seem to imply that finding a negative Jewish characterization is something I was desiring, this is an erroneous assumption. I would have liked nothing more than to walk away from viewing this movie with the opinion that all of the concern and worry about it was simply unjust.

I agree that I did paint Mel's agenda in a very cynical manner, and perhaps this is too extreme, but I think it is clear that he does have an agenda with this movie (based on his interviews), and I do think he has clearly marketed this movie in a way that is not accurate to what it actually is.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on his point.

What I don't understand is how is it so easy for you to dismiss the many points myself and many others make about this film as 'grasping at shadows'? I can put myself in another person's shoes and see through the eyes of the people who support this movie and understand why it is so meaningful to them. I can even understand why criticism of this movie may feel like it is their belief systems that are being criticized (and why this may blind them to seeing what others are seeing in this movie). But I fail to understand why there are so many people who are qucik to dismiss the historical context of passion plays, the comments made by Mel, Mel's religious beliefs, and the depiction in the film as all being part of some conspiracy....

You can assure all you wish, but you are patently incorrect. Please provide clear and concise examples of how the movie takes liberties with the scriptural presentation of the Passion narrative. Having spent 20 years studying the Word, having researched in both secural and spiritual settings, I cannot see one example of how anything in the film is inconsistent with the presentation within the gospels.

I do acknowledge the use of extra-bibllical texts and teachings to flesh out the story. For instance, the whole stations of the cross method for portraying the procession scenes. But those inclusion do not undermine the message of the gospels. Perhaps the only questionable addition is the crowds mocking and beating Him on the road, but it fits well with what we know of the psychology involved in mob actions and is consistent with centuries of tradition. Even here, I thought it was well balanced with those who mouned and wept for Him (and in according with the scriptural tale as told in John - "He was followed by a large crowd, including many woman who mourned for Him").

As for the word bias, I'm sorry we're both stuck with it. I just reiterate that many who claim to point out antisemitic or negative Jewish protrayals begin from the biased premise that Passion plays have and will continue to lead to Jewish mistreatment.... I do not subscribe to that bias. I readily admit my own bias as a believer. I just wish others who are approaching this from the secular and oft-times religiously intolerant position would admit their own biases.... (I am not intended to label you specifically as anti-religious or intolerant).

I remain convinced that the Passion story as set forth in the movie is about as Biblically accurate as we are ever going to get. I also agree with Mel that it is the most Biblically accurate treatment of the Passion ever filmed. Could it be improved. Yes. I'm just tired of the anti-Christianity conspiracy crowd trying to read into the movie what is patently NOT there....

Do I really need to post all my gripes again? This is just getting so tiresome....in fact go reread the many posts that have been made about this movie (I am too tired right now to compose a list again). Either way its not going to matter, you are just going to rationalize away every point that is brought up (much like you do with the insertion of the angry Jewish mob, which is no small point in my mind).

The overall point I am trying to make in my posts is that this movie is just that, a movie, and even more importantly an interpretation that comes from the mind of Mel Gibson, this is not the Bible, it is not the Gospels. Even if everything in this movie was in the Gospels (which is not true) it is still only one man's interpretation of these writings. It does take liberties, and to be honest with you I don't see how it couldn't, because there is so little detail given in many parts of the scriptures. It is not the fact that liberties were taken that I have a problem with, but the overall picture that is painted that is the problem. Alas, it is not a sin to point out the many flaws of this movie...

Come on now, if you have studied them as much as you say you have, can this really be true? There are plenty of people who have spent their whole lives studying these writings, who have been able to see discrepencies and have been able to understand the concern this movie causes.

Do you also acknowledge that these texts were written by an anti-semitic and that this may have influenced the film?

In fact your use of the words "flesh out" is exactly what I am referring to when I speak of liberties.

This is not a bias, it is a historical fact. Passion plays HAVE lead to Jewish 'mistreatment' (this word minimizes it just a tad don't you think?), not only have they lead to Jewish 'mistreatment', but they have, in the past, been used for the explicit purpose of inciting violence against Jews. You can choose not to believe this if you want, but that doesn't make it any less true. As for the part about them continuing to lead to 'mistreatment' in the future, that is yet to be seen.

There are people that have approached this film with an anti-religious agenda and I am not a one of those people, nor do I support those people. Approaching this film with a heightened sensitivity to the concerns and worries of the Jewish people is my "bias" and as I said before doesn't prevent me from forming my own, educated and informed, opinion about the movie.

I hear ya, I am also tired of the people who automatically assume that if you believe this movie portrays Jews in an exaggerated negative light, you must be part of some anti-Christian conspiracy crowd...

I'm reading the book now by Anne Emmerich and so far I am up to the part where Jesus is about to be brought before Caiphas for the first time. I really don't know what the big deal is. It seems that what ever biases people had they didn't get from this book, but from themselves. A few lines in this book may have been used as an excuse for bad things.

Again, Dave-o, and not intending to diminish your position, but you have offered no evidence, no textual support and no rational arguments to support your claims that the movie works to increase or otherwise exacerbate the negative portrayal of the Jewish people in comparison with the story as written in the gospels.

Despite your allegation that I rationalized the inclusion of the mob scenes, I offered significant discussion points (1. mob mentality as defined under modern psychology; 2. consistency with long-standing tradition within the chruch; and, 3. biblical textual evidence which can be used to support the existence of the crowd, if not their actions). Instead of discussing this, which is after all the point, you fall back on your patent "this is a big deal, bad act" rhetoric without either challenging my support or offering any counterarguments.

As to my discussion of passion plays, I never said I did not believe the historical connection between Passion plays and Pogroms, especially in eastern Europe. However, I did say I do not see how reference to past acts of intolerance in radically different social settings can be used to challenge an art form in use in a modern society such as the case with the Passion movie. Perhaps it was badly worded. I should have said "I just reiterate that many who claim to point out antisemitic or negative Jewish protrayals begin from the biased premise that BECAUSE Passion plays have in the past resulted in significant Jewish mistreatment (ie. Pogroms), modern Passion play narratives will continue to lead to Jewish mistreatment.... I do not subscribe to that bias." (Emphasis added on edits/clarification).

Finally, I have yet to see any scholar offer concise evidence of how the film incorporates anything which is contrary to the biblical narrative. While it does add to the gospel story, as we both acknowledge it must, the additions are completely consistent with the story as set forth in the gospels.

And really finally.... , I do not have a problem with those who see problems with the film. I have good friends who don't like the film and offer good reasoning for their dislike. My problem is those who use empty rhetoric and preconceived biases without seeking out or fully forming their own positions based on research, analysis and open discussion and without resorting to attaching labels which prevent any meaningful discourse.

I just wanted to say, good posts Wayne . . . there have been a few time that I've planned on posting, but when I get ready to, I realize that you've already covered what I was going to say.

Actually I have, many times, in many past posts, and I don't blame you for not wanting to go re-read these (because neither do I). However, rather than repeating myself again and again, I will refer you to this article that I have recently come upon, it includes all of the problems I have previously stated with this movie (and many more I haven't brought up and didn't even catch) and it does so in a clear and methodical manner (and not from an anti-religious perspective). Brace yourself, it is quite long, but well worth the read...

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-...cunningham.htm


Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: A Challenge to Catholic Teaching

Philip A. Cunningham

Executive Director, Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College



Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ projects a world in which demonic powers and evil, faithless humans blow by blow and wound by wound gradually destroy the body of Jesus of Nazareth. As David Elcott has observed, the film encourages viewers to take sides in a war of good vs. evil, a cosmic battle of belief vs. the powers of darkness. One is either a follower of Jesus or a pawn of Satan. For some this dualism seems to reach out from the screen into reactions to the movie. A viewer either praises the film or is aligned with the sinister forces that oppose it. Fans of the film pillory critics of this Hollywood production as enemies of the New Testament.

The dualistic world projected by the movie is one in which forgiveness is talked about but is not always operative even on the side of the forces of light. The God to whom Jesus prays seems quite unforgiving. Bare moments after Jesus prays to his Father to forgive his ignorant crucifiers, a raven descends from the heavens to peck out the eye of the presumably ignorant crucifixion victim who has taunted Jesus. Seconds after Jesus dies, a divine teardrop from heaven triggers an earthquake that destroys the heart of the Jewish Temple. Neither scene is found in the New Testament. The increasingly severe tortures inflicted on Jesus suggest that only endless pain can put things right with God.

Unbiblical Scenes

The film is filled with non-biblical elements. In principle there is nothing wrong for a screenwriter to augment the rather meager Gospel narratives. Indeed, choices such as staging, lighting, costuming, etc. make the supplementing of the biblical texts inevitable. These unbiblical features are so interwoven with scenes from one Gospel or another that the unwary viewer, already experiencing sensory overload because of the film’s vivid brutality, is unlikely to detect them or ponder their significance. The extra-biblical materials shed light on one of the sources of the movie’s polarized “us vs. them” world. A partial list, excepting flashbacks, includes:



Satan tempts Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. “Who is your father? Who are you?” an androgynous, hooded figure asks. “No one man can carry this burden of sin, I tell you.” [N.B. In Mark and Luke, demons are well aware of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son.]

Jewish arrestors throw Jesus shackled in chains off a bridge on his way to his encounter with the Jewish high priests. Demonic creatures lurk beneath. Among other injuries, one of Jesus’ eyes becomes swollen shut.

Agents of the high priests pay money to other Jews to assemble at the high priest’s courtyard to demand Jesus’ death.

Mary Magdalen entreats Roman soldiers to help Jesus. “They are trying to hide their crime from you,” she pleads. An organizer of the assembling Jews tells the Roman that it is merely an internal affair over someone who broke the Temple laws.

In his encounter with council of Jewish priests, Jesus is physically assaulted by a crowd of dozens of Jews, many wearing prayer shawls. Although the site had earlier been described as the high priest’s courtyard, the immense size of the place suggests that this scene actually occurs within the Temple, a suspicion partially confirmed by the destruction that befalls the Temple when Jesus dies.

While awaiting his meeting with the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, Jewish captors shackle Jesus to a wall in a chamber beneath the site of his encounter with the Jewish council. His mother Mary somehow senses his presence below.

An aide tells Pilate that trouble is brewing “within the walls. The Pharisees apparently hate the man.” [N.B. The Pharisees are almost totally absent from the Gospel passion narratives.]

Judas is driven to suicide by demon-children.

Pilate sums up the Jewish abuse of Jesus by asking the priests, “Do you always punish your prisoners before they are judged?”

Pilate offers Jesus a drink, which is refused.

Pilate confesses to his wife that he fears the Jewish high priest will lead a revolt against Rome if he does not yield to Jewish demands to crucify Jesus. Pilate and his aides decide they need reinforcements because an uprising has already begun.

The high priests and Jesus’ mother are among the spectators at Jesus’ scourging. Satan drifts among the priests.

Pilate’s wife gives the mother of Jesus linens with which to bury Jesus.

Mary tries to soak up the pools of blood left after the scourging.

Pilate, a Roman governor, is shocked by the appearance of Jesus after the scourging.

Jesus carries an unusually large, complete cross. One of those to be crucified with him taunts, “Why do you embrace your cross, you fool?”

The Roman execution squad is drunk and continues to so abuse Jesus that it is doubtful if he will make it alive to Golgotha.

"Jews should not be portrayed as avaricious; blood thirsty (e.g., in certain depiction's of Jesus' appearances before the Temple priesthood or before Pilate); or implacable enemies of Christ (e.g., by changing the small "crowd" at the governor's palace into a teeming mob). Such depictions, with their obvious "collective guilt" implications, eliminate those parts of the gospels that show that the secrecy surrounding Jesus' “trial” was motivated by the large following he had in Jerusalem and that the Jewish populace, far from wishing his death, would have opposed it had they known and, in fact, mourned his death by Roman execution (cf. Lk 23:27)"

U.S. Bishops, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion (1988), B,3,d.

As this list makes clear, the extra-biblical scenes help divide the characters into friends and foes. While there are certainly dissenters (Nicodemus calls the council proceedings “a beastly travesty,” voices in the crowd call Jesus a holy man, Simon of Cyrene almost carries Jesus as well as the cross), the film gives the strong impression of implacable and murderous Jewish hostility to Jesus. The portrayal of the high priests and the destruction of portions of the Temple visually situate Jewish institutions, and perhaps Judaism itself, on the side of the unbelieving dark forces.

Roman figures are handled differently. There are brutal and vicious scourgers and executioners who are plainly wicked. But Pilate and his wife and some close aides come across as decent people who strive to save Jesus from death. The wife’s gift of linens to Mary associates her character with some Christian traditions that considered Pilate and his wife to have been inchoate believers and eventually saints.

An Ahistorical Mixing of the Gospels in Violation of Catholic Teaching

Catholic teaching understands that the diversity among the Gospels reflects four complementary inspirations that each present one facet of the jewel that is the mystery of Jesus Christ. Or to use another metaphor, “the New Testament authors, precisely as pastors and teachers, bear witness indeed to the same Christ, but with voices that differ as in the harmony of one piece of music.”[1]

The Catholic magisterium also teaches that the Gospels contain insights and information from three different historical “stages”: (1) the ministry of Jesus; (2) the post-resurrection preaching of the apostles; and (3) the time of the composition of the Gospels.[2] One consequence of this teaching is that debates over Jesus’ divine identity that arose after the resurrection influenced the narratives of his ministry and crucifixion. As one Vatican document has put it, “The Gospels are the outcome of long and complicated editorial work . . . Hence it cannot be ruled out that some references hostile to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent church and the Jewish community. Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish relations long after the time of Jesus. To establish this is of capital importance if we wish to bring out the meaning of certain Gospel texts for Christians today.”[3]

"By comparing what is shared and what distinguishes the various gospel accounts from each other, the homilist can discern the core from the particular optics of each. One can then better see the significant theological differences between the passion narratives. These differences also are part of the inspired Word of God."

U.S. Bishops, God’s Mercy Endures Forever (1988), §23.

What does this mean for dramatizations of the passion of Christ from a Catholic perspective? Unless they decide simply to present the passion according to Mark or one of the other evangelists, all authors of passion dramas have to choose elements from the four different Gospel narratives of Jesus’ death in order to shape a coherent narrative. This leads to the question: what principles of selection will guide the composition of a particular passion script? In addition, how will the drama of the death of Jesus deal with the later theological insights that are embedded in the Gospel texts? If ignored, a script will anachronistically present theological debates that had not yet occurred during Jesus’ lifetime as realities at the time of his death.

In The Passion of the Christ, one can readily discern the Gospel sources behind various scenes. The principles for their selection and arrangement are not so evident. Excluding flashbacks, this is a partial list of the Gospel sources employed.

In Gethsemane, Jesus prays for the cup to pass him by [Synoptics].

Jesus heals the ear of an arrestor [Luke].

Jesus is brought before a Passover night meeting of the Sanhedrin. During the proceeding he is asked if he is the Son of God or the Son of the Blessed [Mark, Matthew].

When brought to Pilate, Caiaphas accuses Jesus of various crimes [a combination of Luke, John, and extra-biblical material].

Pilate’s wife warns him of her dreams about the righteous Jesus [Matthew].

Pilate tells Jesus that his own priests and people have handed him over [John].

Pilate sends Jesus to Herod for judgment. He refuses to get involved [Luke].

Pilate orders Jesus scourged in a vain attempt to elicit pity from the Jewish mob [John].

Jesus tells Pilate that the one who handed him over to the governor bears the greater sin [John].

Pilate washes his hands of responsibility before the Jewish mob [Matthew].

Simon of Cyrene is coerced into carrying Jesus’ cross [Synoptics].

One effect of this arrangement is to heighten “Jewish” guilt. This is especially evident in the pivotal confrontation between Pilate on the one hand, and Caiaphas, the priests, and the Jewish crowd on the other.

Gibson has chosen to follow the Gospel of John in having Jesus’ scourged as an effort by Pilate to placate the bloodthirst of the Jewish crowd. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is scourged only after Pilate pronounces his sentence, in other words as part of the normal Roman crucifixion process. Luke doesn’t present it at all.

"It is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that “it's in the Bible.” One must account for one's selections."

U.S. Bishops, Criteria for the Evaluation of

Dramatizations of the Passion (1988), C,1,c. .

In the film, Pilate presents the flayed Jesus to the Jewish crowd, saying “Behold the man” [John]. Caiaphas leads the crowd in chanting “Crucify him!” [all four Gospels, but at this point only in John]. Pilate, gesturing to the bloody Jesus, asks. “Isn't this enough?” [extra-biblical]. The crowd is unappeased. “Shall I crucify your king?” asks Pilate. Caiaphas declares ironically, “We have no king but Caesar” [John]. Pilate turns to Jesus, seeking some escape. “Speak to me. I have the power to crucify you or to set you free.” Jesus reassures him, “He who delivered me to you has the greater sin” [John]. If there is any doubt about to whom this refers, Caiaphas immediately exclaims, “If you free him, governor, you are no friend of Caesar’s” [John, adapted]. Violence breaks out between the crowd and the soldiers. A riot appears imminent [Matthew]. Pilate summons a servant to bring him a bowl of water. Dramatically lifting his hands, Pilate announces, “It is you who want him crucified, not I” [extra-biblical]. He washes his hands. Caiaphas angrily pointing to Pilate exclaims in Aramaic (not in subtitles), “Let his blood be on us and our children!” [Matthew, adapted]. Pilate commands his aide, “Do as they wish” [extra-biblical].

This combination of the Johannine scourging as Pilate’s effort to free Jesus with Matthew’s scene of Pilate washing his hands of responsibility results in a depiction of Jewish hostility that is more relentless, implacable, and evil than either Gospel on its own conveys.

There were other choices that could have been made that would have been equally faithful to the Bible but would have produced a substantially different combined narrative. These include:

· Because Jesus is popular with the people at large, he is arrested clandestinely at night to avoid a riot (Mk. 14:2).

· Caiaphas fears that a riot could provoke the Romans to destroy the Temple (Jn. 11:48). [N.B. the opposite of the film’s claim he could lead a revolt.]

· Jesus is arrested by Temple guards and Roman soldiers (Jn. 18:3).

· Jesus is questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to Pilate (Jn.18:19, 24, 28) [N.B. no Sanhedrin “trial” or question of Jesus’ divinity].

· Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Lk 13:1).

· Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mk. 15:15, as against Jn. 19:1-8 ff.).

· “A great multitude of the people” (Lk. 23:27) and “all the multitudes” (Lk. 23:48) of Jews are sorrowful about Jesus’ crucifixion.

· Jesus’ execution was done in haste (Mk.15:25; Jn 19:31).

Moreover, The Passion of the Christ completely ignores the fact, which also happens to be authoritative Catholic teaching, that the Gospel narratives convey post-resurrectional theological understandings. Given the film’s use of ancient languages (although the Latin should have been Greek), viewers will be even more inclined to accept the movie as a historical reproduction. They will therefore come to the ahistorical and erroneous conclusion that Jewish characters wanted Jesus dead because he claimed to be the Son of God. From there it is easy to slip into thinking that Judaism itself is aligned with the dark forces that oppose Jesus, a notion reinforced by the destruction in the Temple at the film’s end.

Catholics who take seriously the legacy of Pope John Paul II are obliged to ask the following questions about The Passion of the Christ:

Is it acceptable for a filmmaker – even though he regularly repeats the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ died for the sins of all humanity – to so combine elements from the four Gospel accounts and to add many scenes not found in the New Testament with the result that the wickedness of Jewish characters is magnified? Can such directorial choices simply be overlooked because they occur in a movie about Christ?

In a church whose highest leadership has prayed for God’s forgiveness for exactly those sins over the past millennium and whose teachings repudiate such practices, the answer can only be “no.”

Why has Gibson chosen to select and combine in the way he did? What is the source of the extra-biblical material in Gibson’s film?

There is an author at work who ought to have received a screenwriting credit for the film. Indeed, it is obvious upon close examination that Gibson has actually created a cinematic version not so much of the Gospels but of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s purported visions of the death of Jesus.

The Passion According to Anne Catherine Emmerich

Anne Catherine Emmerich lived between 1774 and 1824. An Augustinian nun in Westphalia, Germany who was renowned as a mystic and stigmatic, her dreams or visions of the life of Christ were collected after her death and published. Living when Christians simply took it for granted that Jews were collectively cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus, her narratives emphasize Jewish evildoing.

Probably the most disturbing indication of Emmerich’s attitudes toward Jews is found in a reported vision that occurred in 1819. A recently deceased Jewish widow takes Emmerich’s spirit on a journey to a distant Jewish city:

The soul of the old Jewess Meyr told me on the way that it was true that in former times the Jews, both in our country and elsewhere, had strangled many Christians, principally children, and used their blood for all sort of superstitious and diabolical practices. She had once believed it lawful; but she now knew that it was abominable murder. They still follow such practices in this country and in others more distant; but very secretly, because they are obliged to have commercial intercourse with Christians.[4]

Given this matter-of-fact repetition of the blood libel, followed by racist descriptions of Jews with “hooked noses” (whose degree of bend indicates their degree of evilness),[5] it is not surprising that Emmerich’s account of Jesus’ passion prominently features negative images of Jews, including a close association with the demonic:

"In the Christian world […] erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability [for the crucifixion] have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people."

Pope John Paul II, Oct. 21, 1997

At the same moment I perceived the yawning abyss of hell like a fiery meteor at the feet of Caiaphas; it was filled with horrible devils; a slight gauze alone appeared to separate him from its dark flames. I could see the demoniacal fury with which his heart was overflowing, and the whole house looked to me like hell. […]I remember seeing, among other frightful things, a number of little black objects, like dogs with claws, which walked on their hind legs; I knew at the time what kind of wickedness was indicated by this apparition, but I cannot remember now. I saw these horrible phantoms enter into the bodies of the greatest part of the bystanders, or else place themselves on their head or shoulders.[6]

While Gibson did not include this scene, its worldview of a cosmic battle between demonic powers and Jews against the forces of believers in Christ certainly permeates his film. Indeed almost all of the film’s extra-biblical scenes mentioned above are derived from Emmerich. To them one could add the picture of Herod as effeminate, of Barabbas as bestial (which makes the crowd’s preference of him even more vile), and of Jesus’ arm being dislocated by his crucifiers in order to line up with pre-drilled holes in the cross. The film’s arrangement of the different Gospel elements is also indebted to Emmerich. The Passion of the Christ is a filmed version of Emmerich’s imaginative interpretation of the Gospels. The film is so dependent on her that it could have been aptly titled The Passion According to Emmerich.

It is thanks to Emmerich’s influence, for example, that the film exaggerates Gospel passages that describe Jesus as struck by Jewish individuals and turns them into a severe assault upon Jesus. All the Gospels describe some violence being inflicted on Jesus when he is brought before the high priest. In the synoptics, he is spat upon, blindfolded, struck on the face, and slapped (Mt. 26:67-68, Mk. 14:65; Lk. 22:63-65), although in John a single soldier only strikes Jesus once with his hand (Jn.18:22 ). However, in Emmerich, Jesus is brutally abused at this juncture, a scene that is clearly echoed in the film:

[A] crowd of miscreants— the very scum of the people—surrounded Jesus like a swarm of infuriated wasps, and began to heap every imaginable insult upon him. […] [They] pulled out handfuls of his hair and beard, spat upon him, struck him with their fists, wounded him with sharp-pointed sticks, and even ran needles into his body; […] around his neck they hung a long iron chain, with an iron ring at each end, studded with sharp points, which bruised and tore his knees as be walked. […] After many many insults, they seized the chain which was hanging on his neck, dragged him towards the room into which the Council had withdrawn, and with their sticks forced him in, […] A large body of councilors, with Caiaphas at their head, were still in the room, and they looked with both delight and approbation at the shameful scene which was enacted, […] Every countenance looked diabolical and enraged, and all around was dark, confused, and terrific.[7]

The film is so dependent on her that it could have been aptly titled The Passion According to Emmerich.

Gibson has been quoted as saying that Emmerich “supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.”[8] He also carries what he considers to be her relic, which he showed during a recent television interview.[9] This raises the possibility that Gibson has relied so heavily on Emmerich because he believes she was gifted with a historical vision of the first-century. Whether this is true or not, Gibson claimed in the same television interview that he saw nothing antisemitic in her writings. However, from a Catholic perspective it seems undeniable that both Emmerich and Gibson have failed to “avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes toward the Jewish people.”[10]

Historical Errors

The Passion of the Christ’s filming in ancient languages gives the film the veneer of historical verisimilitude that may mislead some viewers into thinking they’re watching a documentary. And despite claims that the film is the most accurate portrayal of the death of Jesus ever filmed, The Passion of the Christ contains many historical errors and omissions. For instance, although graphic and bloody, the movie shows Jesus carrying a complete cross and not simply a crossbeam; the nails are driven through his palms, not his wrists; and Gibson adds a footrest to the cross, which is unattested in Roman literature or archaeological studies that instead describe a projecting seat.[11] It is also noteworthy that those crucified with Jesus are not scourged, even though that was the standard Roman procedure. The film’s depiction of the mechanics of crucifixion is more derived from traditions of Christian art than from historical knowledge. An artistic judgment is also evident in the scourging scene where, although Jesus' flesh is torn to ribbons so that his ribs are visible, his loincloth seems amazingly resistant to the whips.

More importantly, the film totally reverses the relationship of Pilate to Caiaphas. It is an undisputed historical fact that Caiaphas was dependent on the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, to retain his position as high priest. Since Caiaphas held the high priesthood throughout Pilate’s eleven-year tenure as prefect, but was quickly removed when it ended, it seems clear that the two collaborated closely. There was surely no possibility that Caiaphas could even imagine revolting against Roman rule, as the film contends. The result of this historical fantasy is that the Jewish leader is made the driving force behind Jesus’ execution.

Also significant is the historical fact that the Passover festival was an especially volatile time since it celebrated freedom from foreign domination. Jerusalem overflowed with Jewish pilgrims from around the Empire, and it was the usual practice for Roman governors to station soldiers in the Temple precincts to prevent any uprising.[12] The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus arrived in the city a few days before the festival and caused a disturbance in the Temple.

Given this enflamed setting, it not difficult to discern why a Roman prefect might want to execute Jesus. Jesus came from the Galilee, the homeland of earlier foes of Rome; he had been proclaiming the dawning of the Kingdom of Israel’s God, which would result in the overthrow of Caesar; he had spoken of the Temple’s destruction and caused a disturbance there; he had been coy about the question of tribute to Rome; and he had arrived in Jerusalem with followers in the incendiary Passover season. The quickness with which Jesus was executed after his surreptitious arrest, and the fact that he was publicly crucified (not quietly assassinated) as a seditionist “king of the Jews” as a warning to all malcontents, makes it all but certain that Pilate chose to remove an evident troublemaker from the scene and to make an example of him. None of these historical considerations influenced Gibson’s Emmerich-driven storyline.

This makes the movie deficient according to Catholic teaching since, “a guiding artistic vision sensitive to historical fact and to the best biblical scholarship are obviously necessary”[13] in composing passion dramatizations.

Theological Concerns

Finally, the film’s graphic, persistent, and intimate violence raises theological questions from a Catholic perspective. It closely resonates with an understanding of salvation that holds that God had to be satisfied or appeased for the countless sins of humanity by subjecting his son to unspeakable torments. This sadistic picture of God is hardly compatible with the God proclaimed by Jesus as the one who seeks for the lost sheep, who welcomes back the prodigal son before he can even express remorse, or who causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike.



This understanding of salvation is constricted because it fails to incorporate the Incarnation. The Word of God enters into human history not to pay back in pain some debt that the Father will not otherwise remit. No, among other things the Word became flesh to take on human mortality and overcome it.

This explains why none of the Gospel writers felt it is necessary to communicate God’s love by writing extensive scenes of the unremitting torture of Jesus. Yet they have communicated God’s love for two millennia. Is it a sign of some cultural pathology that some people are looking forward to the feeling of being actually present at the scourging and crucifixion?

Moreover, one cannot properly understand the meaning of the cross without pondering the meaning of the resurrection, as 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 2 make clear. By focusing on Jesus' torments, the film minimizes the central and defining reality of the resurrection for Christian faith. Christ has conquered death. Therefore, all creation is being renewed. This happens not because Jesus endured superhuman amounts of pain, but because God, in union with human nature, has removed death's sting.

Conclusion

The Passion of the Christ is a powerful cinematic experience that will no doubt emotionally move many viewers. Whether this emotion is the result of the trauma of seeing someone graphically tortured to death or a genuine spiritual encounter or some combination of the two is difficult to assess. Grief and shock are not automatic promoters of Christian faith. Moreover, simply because some viewers do not personally experience feelings of hostility to Jews after seeing the film does not excuse the unbiblical intensification of Jewish culpability that the film conveys.

The movie’s problematic aspects outweigh some positive features. For example, many Catholics will appreciate the prominence given to the mother of Jesus, even though in the New Testament she appears only briefly at the foot of the cross in just one Gospel. Likewise, the visual Eucharistic allusions are praiseworthy, although they depict the Mass only in sacrificial terms and minimize its fellowship meal dimensions.

Is it acceptable for a filmmaker to combine Gospel elements and to add scenes not found in the New Testament so that the evil of Jewish characters is magnified?

The controversy over the film has brought to light the most disturbing claim that to criticize the movie is to criticize the New Testament. For example, Paul Lauer, Mel Gibson’s publicist had this to say:

Are some people going to make the argument for anti-Semitism [in the film]? Maybe. But to do that, they would have to call the New Testament gospels anti-Semitic, which, as you know, some people do. You can’t change the story told in the gospels any more than Steven Spielberg could be expected to change the history of the Holocaust to avoid blaming the Germans.[14]

This argument has been echoed by admirers of a pre-release version of the film, including some Catholics, who, frankly, ought to know better.

According to one commentator, “[t]o take issue with this movie is, essentially, to take issue with the Gospels, to take issue with the Christian faith and to take issue with a monumental artistic achievement by a filmmaker of increasing stature.”[15] Another declared, “I really don’t think all the liberal caterwauling is going to hurt the movie. For some people, the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic. There’s nothing we can say to convince them otherwise, no matter how hard we try.”[16] And Archbishop John Foley stated, “There’s nothing in the film that doesn’t come from the Gospel accounts. [!] So if they’re critical of the film, they would be critical of the Gospel. It was very faithful to the Gospel.”[17]

Honesty demands the recognition that Christians have used (and abused) the New Testament over the centuries to claim that “the Jews” were cursed for rejecting and crucifying Jesus. As Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy has put it, “preaching accused the Jews of every age of deicide.”[18] Beginning in the late Middle Ages, the deicide charge was especially disseminated every Holy Week in connection with the proclamation and preaching of the Johannine passion narrative and through performances of passion plays. These dramatic reenactments regularly inspired violence against Jews. In 1539, Pope Paul III banned the annual passion performance in the Coliseum because it had routinely caused the ransacking of the Jewish ghetto, and examples could be multiplied. The history of Christian-Jewish relations in Europe makes it undeniable that the New Testament can be put to antisemitic purposes.

This is a different question from whether the New Testament is intrinsically antisemitic. To affirm the latter, it seems to me, would require making a case that the New Testament authors, many of whom were themselves Jews, had a racist antipathy toward Jews. Given the intramural nature of the polemics used by the biblical authors, such a case would in my opinion be difficult to sustain. But at all events the real issue is the proper interpretation of the New Testament, not whether to apply to it, anachronistically, the term “antisemitic.” Later, when the separate “books” of the New Testament had been assembled into one canon, and were read in very different social contexts by an all-Gentile church, the potential grew for combining and construing them with hostility to Jewish outsiders. To ask, then, whether a particular dramatization of the New Testament passion narratives might promote hostility to Jews does not imply any judgment on the alleged antisemitism of the New Testament itself. Rather, to repeat, it is to ask how the passion narratives are being interpreted — a question morally demanded by past antisemitic interpretations.

For Gibson’s fans to polemicize that the film cannot be critiqued without rejecting the New Testament is to ignore history and to trivialize decades of official Catholic teaching on biblical interpretation. In some ways the movie is a direct challenge to that teaching. It also rejects the Holy Father’s solemn commitment at the Western Wall in 2000 to do penance for past Christian sins against the Jewish people by “seeking genuine fellowship with the people of the covenant.” Such fellowship cannot possibly rest upon the endorsement of a film that perpetuates hoary anti-Jewish images.

-End article

Now you have...

This is nothing but someone's opinion. The film was always said to be based on Emmerich's book. I'm reading it now and I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact she mentions that the early Christians were actually Jews. She also writes that the common people liked Jesus and followed him. Just as in the movie, it was those in power that thought Jesus was a threat to their power. Nice reason to kill someone.

Got lots of free time dave-o?

Those are all valid points, and none of them are expressly stated in the Bible, but at the same time they are not contrary to the Bible. Contrary would imply that they are in opposition to the Bible. Most of them are just simply artistic interpretations that don't go against any Biblical principles.

Take for instance Satan tempting Jesus at the beginning of the film. This isn't anywhere in the Bible, but from a religious standpoint Satan had to have been there trying to convince Jesus not to go through with it because of what it would mean. I had never thought about Satan being present during this time before seeing the movie and I think that it was one of the best artistic liberties that Gibson took. Not only the temptation at the beginning but just the ominous presence of Satan in the backgroud as a spectator of sorts. It may not be expressly in the Bible, but it's certainly not contrary to Biblical teaching. It's the same with all of the "unbiblical scenes" that are listed.

Now I'll agree on historical inaccuracies because there are a number of those. But we have to take into account that Gibson wasn't trying to make a completely historically accurate film but rather a traditionally accurate film from his strict Catholic viewpoint (which is different than most common Catholics in the world today) with as must accuracy as possible. But the focus was on tradition, not history.

No its more than just an opinion, it is an educated and informed analysis of this film, complete with a methodically illustrated contrast to the Gospels, Catholic Teaching, and Historical information, among other things. But, calling it just 'someone's opinon' makes it easier to avoid fully digesting and understanding the points that are made.

In reference to Emmerich, are you sure you got the right book? I haven't heard anyone dispute the fact that Emmerich's book contains some very disturbing anti-semitic passages...

I'm only up to the part where Jesus is about to be brought before Caiphas. What are the exact passages you are referring to?

At first I got the impression that it may be anti-semitic, but as I read more I see that it's not true.

I agree that it is an "educated and informed analysis", but that doesn't change the fact that it is mis-guided. I fully undrestand the points that he is trying to make, but I think that he 1) over-emphasizes the possible negative portrayals of Jews in the film and 2) downplays the positive portrayals of the Jews in the story as much as you claim that supporters of the film ignore the supposed negative ones.

What it seems to me that some people are missing is that the "bad guy" Jewish characters in the story are not bad because they are Jewish . . . they are "bad" and they happen to be Jewish because the story takes place in a Jewish community. The main people who were against Jesus in the story were leaders who were against him for power reasons. The common people who were against Jesus (of which there seemed to be an equal number when compared to those who supported and/or sympathized with him) were followers/supporters of those leaders.

Oh, yeah . . . and they happened to be Jewish . . .



But to make the claim that all Jews are intentionally portrayed in a negative light, because of a few of their number (from 2000 years ago, no less) are portrayed as bad would be like saying that movies about Nazi's during the Holocaust are intentionally trying to portray all Germans, both then and now by showing the attrocities that they committed back then. The small group that was directly invloved in the death of Jesus was portrayed negatively becuase their actions were negative . . . that's all.

If you approcah the film "with a heightened sensitivity to the concerns and worries of the Jewish people", then of course you are going to pick up on potential negativity in the movie, but that doesn't mean it is intentionally, of even actually there. If I say that I saw a woman driving like a maniac the other day, that doesn't mean that I think (and want you to think) that all women drivers are bad. However, to someone "with a heightened sensitivity to the concerns and worries of women", it would be easy to assume that I was making a disparaging remark in regards to the entirety of women drivers. Personally, I think it is a poor assumption and is a stance potentially more dangerous than if the comment were intentional.

If I were to make it intentionally, chances are, I would have made other idiotic comments like that before and, as such, people would think I was an idiot and ignore me. If I wasn't, then the person searching for such negativity would be creating and promoting negativity that wasn't even there. The result . . . other people getting upset because they don't expect a comment like that from me and I get upset because people are misunderstanding my comment.

dave-o, I think that is an absolutely awesome (I try to avoid using that word but I think it's appropriate here) article. I think I can still say the film is not anti-Semitic and, in our day and age, is unlikely to stir up any significant anti-Semitic activity in the United States. I'm not quite as certain about parts of Europe where, at this time, anti-Semitism seems to be at a post-WWII high. In any event, anything that may be stirred up (and perhaps there will be nothing) would be based on feelings that are already existent and I would not blame it on the movie.

More interesting to me is the recounting of the ways the film is extra-Biblical and perhaps not consistent with Catholic teachings. Also interesting is that the article comes from the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning which is at Boston College, a Catholic Jesuit university, and it appears that Professor Cunningham is a Catholic (that doesn't mean he is right on everything he says regarding the film from a Catholic point of view but his perspective is extremely different fron Gibson's):

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/

http://www2.bc.edu/~cunninph/

Finally, all this talk about "the added stuff is not inconsistent with the Gospels" is quite unpursuasive to me. One could say the spaceship from Monty Python's Life of Brian is not inconsistent with the Gospels (perhaps it was unknown to the writers or they knew about it but didn't think it was important so they left it out). You can throw almost anything in there and it will not be inconsistent with the extremely sketchy Gospel accounts but that doesn't mean anything in particular should be thrown in. Professor Cunningham gives his reasons why the Anne Emmerich "vision" stuff and some other things were poor choices to use as the filler. One can agree or disagree with him.

Ok. I'll try and go section by section. Thank you for actually responding this time...



Have to take into account the source. Just as many claim antisemitism based on Mel and his sources, I claim overreaching and bias from the author. Neither of us can prove one or the otehr, but the source is a mark against the discussion as an unbiased review.



I believe it is overly simplistic to label it a dualistic approach. While there is clearly a demonic element at work, nothing in the film itself ties the actions of the Jewish people or the Romans to the demonic forces. Satan is more spectator than activist, except in connection with the treatment of Judas. The demonic taunting of Judas, while clearly extra-biblical, is in keeping with other NT and OT depictions of the spirtual warfare realm. Nothing in the depiction could be described as "unbiblical". As for the earthquake and rending of the temple, it is consistent with passages from the gospels, namely Matt 27:51-53; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. While the passages do not specifically speak as to the splitting of the temply, the earthquake and rending of the temple veil are clearly spelled out in the Matthew passage, and referenced briefly in the Mark and Luke renditions.



Again, I disagree with the author that the choices somehow result in a miraculous "us/them" dichotomy. I think several indicate the impact of outside sources, such as a mixture of religious and political intrigue. However, most important, none of the items in the below list is inconsistent with the biblical narrative. Which to my knowledge makes them non-biblical in origin, but far from "UNBIBLICAL".



I honestly believe that Satan was present and tempting Jesus at this time. His question was not so much to confirm who Jesus was... It was to get Jesus to exercise some mesaure of His "God-powers" in proof and in PRIDE. Satan was trying desperately to get Jesus to sin in Pride or otherwise.... A picture of the spiritual activity exists in Luke where the presence of an angel to strengthen Christ is mentioned.



Not even sure why this is listed. While not in the narrative, it is entirely within reason. In Luke 22:63-65, the guards mock and beat Jesus prior to His trial before the council (see Luke 22:66-71).



Again, while not in the narrative it is consistent with other actions such as paying Judas to betray Christ and actively seeking false evidence (ie. Matt. 26:59; Mark 14:57-58).



Again, while non-biblical in source, it is consistent with other statements/activities recorded. See for instance the combination of Luke 23:1-7 and John 18-28-32.


This is a clear misconstruction by the author. NT era archeology based on both Judaic and Judean religious centers clearly show that the courtyard of the High Priest would have been an enclosure within the outer walls of the temple proper. As such it is entirely consistent with the location depicted. Moreover, the assualt is confirmed in Matt. 26:67-68 and Mark 14:64-65.



It is clear from Luke 22:63-65, that Jesus was held for some period of time in guarded condition prior to the sending to Pilate. While the idea of Mary sensing Christ below her is extra-biblical, and rather fanciful, it does nothing to contradict the narrative flow or meaning.



The Pharisees are referred to with the group identified as the "elders and teachers of the law." See Mark 14:53.

[/B]

Strange, yes. Extra-biblical in origin, yes. Unbiblical, no. There was an active war in the spiritual realm of the NT in which Christ was the folcrum.

[B]

The first is quite probable a response given the situation. There was a continual power struggle/display between the govern government and the temple elite. I find it quite possible the someone like Pilate would issue such a verbal barb in this situation. The second is art. While consistent with the image of Pilate as portrayed in the gospels, most would suggest it is uncharacteristic to the Pilate of recorded history. However, we only have the word recorded for this particular situation. As is the case, even a monster can sometimes show unwitting compassion in particular circumstances. Thus, this image is consistent with the image of the biblical Pilate and thus while extra-biblical, it is not unbiblical.



Extra-biblical, but in keeping with the character of Pilate within the narrative. We do know from history that Pilate was under intense scrutiny from superiors to keep the region under control.



Again, none are contrary tot he biblical message and content. It is a fleshing out which is consistent with the tone/character of the narrative within the text.



There are frequent shots during the trial, the scourging, the procession and the crucifixion where the "people" mourn and wail at the treatment.... Not sure what point is made in the quote. If one cannot use any depictions of Jewish people participating in the process of the Passion, how can one do any biblically accurate passion play. This is PC taken to extremes....



Again, I disagree.... I think the accounts in the film use a good mix to show responsibility for the actions leading to the crucifixion and ultimately clearly proclaim Jesus as the willing participant... But again, our own unique biases make this just one opinion verses another.



To much here to sum up quickly, but I will try. I wholeheartedly disagree with this form of biblical exegesis. To my view, after reviewing the passages, I believe all the gospels to be equally accurate. While some reference events and actions not otherwise included in their mates, nothing is contridictory in my view. Thus, in comiling a full narrative, the author (in this case Gibson) can freely pick and choose. Take for instance, the scourging. While not mentioned in Luke, it is not precluded. In fact, it is quite possible that it did occur in the order filmed. However, if not, it does not in my mind serve to create greater Jewish guilt based on this visioning. Instead, as discussed above, I think Mel has been very good in spreading the blame to all....



Again I disagree. Given his treatment by both the Romans and the Jewish leadership/mob, it is equally shared blame if anything. But Gibson shows clearly that Jesus and God assign no blame through the messages of forgiveness and acceptance of the plan in Jesus flashbacks and 0n-cross dialogue.


This is what was portrayed except for the misquote. Clearly, while the Pharisees and the Priestly class would have prefered to wait until AFTER the passover, that simply is not what happened. THey did however do their best to make it a clandestine arrest and trial.



The claims of insurrection against Ceaser are biblically based. and were used to incite Roman action The scripture quoted is merely a background reason for why the leadership religiously and politically sought Jesus' death.


The scripture referenced does not mention Roman soldiers, only soldiers. It is conceivable that such reference is to the Temple guard who would have been Jewish. I will research this passage to see if the claims of the author are accurate.



Nothing here again precludes the trial. It may be within what John means as questioning. However, it does not mean it did not happen.



So....



Matthew does not reference a timing for the scourging. Even if this is the case, I don't see how it affects the narrative story or the relative level of guilt between Roman and jewish actors



As stated previously, Gibson shows this repeatedly during the various stages of the passion narrative. It is inaccurate to claim that all Jewish participants in the film are anti-Jesus. Many, many in the crowd voice their support and take actions to intercede. As for the last quote from Luke referenced, this was post death/earthquake and I think Gibson showed all at that point in awe.



Yup. It was.... Less than 12 hours from capture to execution. Sounds pretty quick to me.



This has no pull to me. The narratives are not antisemitic. Have they been misconstrued. Yes, in the past. But that does not mean we have to be overly PC in our uses today. I still see nothing antisemitic in the Gibson portrayal. Further, the doctrines discussed above are extra-biblical themselves. Why should I accept them as truth. I believe the Word is accurate in all details.



Doesn't sound like a great lady, but again, Gibson has selected from this source images to flesh out the narrative. While she may have been antisemitic, she may also just be reflecting the times in which she lived. That does not excuse her villanization of Jewish people, but it is context which can be separated from the visions of the Passion which coincide with gospel narratives.



Just because we know that pilate could be violent, just because we know that the relationship between Pilate and Caiphas may be one way in other historical settings, does not mean it could not fit the narrative of scripture. To me, if necessary, I'll say this was a unusual event in their lives and in the operation of the province. But is it precluded by the other historical evidence. No.



This is simplistic theological approach. Jesus was sent for salvation and for suffering. God is love, and God is just (and therefore requires payment for sin). Nothing in the film precludes seeing both sides of God. This is a telling of the Passion, the suffering, of course it will focus on the redemptive sacrificial nature.

Again, this is someone's interpretive opinion based on what I largely see as misuse of biblical exegesis, selective quoting and misapplication of materials.... While we will have to agree to disagree, I would not accept this as proof of underlying antisemitic nature of teh piece. Again, a case of two biases butting heads, but, well, at least you offered some level of support this time. Thank you.

Why don't you guys just publish?

I think your post is filled with a lot of ignorance. But I have no desire to get drawn into another argument over this film.

As for Mel's agenda, you don't even know Mel Gibson or what his intention or agenda is. Therefor, you are in no position to speak on Mel Gibson's intent, that is unless you can read his mind! Can you read his mind? I didn't think so. Case closed!

The fact is theologians and religious scholars rarely agree on anything where the bible or religion is concerned. They all have their own interpretations based on their background and the religion they were brought up in. Fact is, the bible is interpreted in so many different ways that there is no way to be completely sure who is right and who is wrong. When all else fails, read the bible and trust in it.

Most of this film is accurate according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But Mel has certainly taken some liberties here and there strictly for artistic license. But this film is an accurate depiction of the last hours of Jesus and his crucifixion.

Agreed! There are positive and negative depictions of the Jews in the film. Michael Medved, a Jewish critic, was right in his assessment. The Jews attacking Mel Gibson and attacking this film have done more damage to Jews everywhere than this film ever could. Seems to me Jewish people want to erase their involvement in what I believe is a true story. Well, you can't.

Ultimately, we're all responsible for Jesus' death. He took the sins of all people of all time upon his shoulders, and died for all of us.

Not to bash any religion, but I find it very ironic that a lot of Christianity has become what Jesus died to protest. Some branches of Christianity practice various rituals that are based on tradition rather than faith and the teachings of Jesus. Other branches have created rules for their members that have to be followed simply because they are there. Except for systematic torture and painful execution not much has changed in 2000 years.

My first instinct was to reply to your (wlmowery's) post in the usual fashion of picking apart the many things I don't agree with (although I didn't disagree with all of what you said). Rather than doing that, I will just hit a few highlights and try to summarize, because quite frankly I am getting carpel tunnel form this discussion. I want to make it clear that I have never accused Mel Gibson of intentionally creating an anti-semitic film (even my cynical proclamation that Mel had an agenda was meant to refer to his sect of Catholicism being clearly placed in this movie but not being clearly marketed in this way, was in no way an indictment of anti-semitism).

My main problems with your reponses to this article lie in the oft used phrases "is consistent with", "doesn't preclude", "is not inconsistent with" etc. These type of statements only highlight the fact that the points you are referencing are places where Mel has deviated from the written Word. Also, I really thought the distinction between unbiblical and nonbiblical was largely semantic and distracted from the main point that the movie deviated (consistent or not) from the Gospels. I assure you that quite a lot of very different and extreme movies that are "consistent" with the Bible (at least with some part of it) could be made and I could argue that there is nothing in the Bible that precludes this from happening (i.e. much like movielib's response, nothing precludes many quite ridiculous things from happening).

I also think that we can nitpick each other's comments until the end of time because many of the problems we have deal more with interpretation than with what is actually written. I add up all of the selective peices of scripture that were chosen for this movie, the deviations included, the fact that the majority of the 'filler' was taken from the writings of an anti-semite, and in my mind it equals an unbalanced and distorted view of what the Gospels proclaim. You, and someone else, may also add these things up and come to very different conclusions. As I said before, we could probably go back and forth until our fingers fall off and still not agree.....which leave us with the tired old cliche of, we must agree to disagree (surprised, eh?).

I agree to disagree....

Only wanted to respond to say that the distinction between extra-biblical (non-biblical) and unbiblical is not to me a mere matter of semantics when discussing the accuracy of the film. As we both agreed, it would be impossible to make a film 100% bibilcally based with no added elements. To me the issue is whether the added materials are consistent with the text and tone of the relevant biblical passages. If not, then the film cannot be deemed accurate. If so, then the film is attempting to be as accurate as possible for the medium. In each case, I think Gibson's selections fit within the text/tone of the biblical narrative. While these additions do not have biblical authority they are consistent with the story within the Word.

Therefore, in my view the film does not "deviate" as the term is typically used. It is enhanced or expanded in a manner that does not undermine the message.