The Passion of the Christ

[Johann]

A polite request Kenneth.

Don't use the quote button so much. We don't have many members yet. Chances are pretty good we'll know who you're referring to-unless you wanna be specific.

My wrist hurts from scrolling....

[anduril]

I prefer to use quote, though... it helps me organize my replies and c'mon... it makes your wrist hurt... It also helps me to make sure that reply to specific things I've been asked or that's been written...

[cinemabon]

I have many objections to this film but I am not going to list them. Gibson has appealed to a wide audience and he has won them. The film is successful and he is making a ton of cash. I wish I could make a message film and be half as successful. So, I have to congratulate him on that point.

However, I have been follow the intelligencia on this as well. Anthropologists and Biblical Scholars have had a field day with Gibson's attempt at realism. No one can carry a 350lb piece of wood for very long (the typical weight of most crucifixes, many used over and over. Prisoners were tied with rope and lead to the site). Roman puts thousands of jews to death in Palastine. No Roman Governor (and Pilate was known to be especially cruel) would have hesitated to put one more to death. Everyone knows a nail driven through the hand will not support the weight of a man. It would have ripped out through his fingers.

Finally, I am sick of the way everyone obsesses over Christ. There have been many great men and women on this planet who have contributed so much to this world in terms of peace and understanding. In the name of Christ we currently have, in this country, a battle of our own going on. Namely, who is going to control the Congress and how the constitution is interpreted. For two thousand years zealots have quoted Christ for their own gain, starting at the Vatican to gain power through intimidation and fear. If Christ were alive today, he would weep over what the Christians have done in his name.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
However, I have been follow the intelligencia on this as well. Anthropologists and Biblical Scholars have had a field day with Gibson's attempt at realism. No one can carry a 350lb piece of wood for very long (the typical weight of most crucifixes, many used over and over. Prisoners were tied with rope and lead to the site).

You are certainly right that there are some significant problems with Gibson's so-called "historical accuracy."

Just curious... do you have a source or sources for your particular information on the weight of the crucifix and the issue of how the prisoners were taken to the site?

Originally posted by cinemabon
Roman puts thousands of jews to death in Palastine. No Roman Governor (and Pilate was known to be especially cruel) would have hesitated to put one more to death.

Certainly, Pilate was even recalled to Rome for his brutality in Palestine. Though, it should be noted that even he might have hesitated depending on the foreseeable political consequences... the Romans were brutal but they were also calculated.

Originally posted by cinemabon
Everyone knows a nail driven through the hand will not support the weight of a man. It would have ripped out through his fingers.

True... it is well-established that the nails would have been driven through the wrists if nails were used (sometimes victims were only tied to the cross and allowed to starve to death). Still, in Gibson's defense, Jesus's arms, in the movie, are tied to the cross too, which makes nails driven through the hand plausible.

Originally posted by cinemabon
Finally, I am sick of the way everyone obsesses over Christ. There have been many great men and women on this planet who have contributed so much to this world in terms of peace and understanding.

Of course, the distinction is that no other great man or woman has claimed to be God. Sure, lots of crackpots have done so but they aren't generally remembered, except perhaps with disdain. The "obsession" over Jesus stems not only from his teachings but from his claims as recorded in the Gospels and whether or not they should be accepted as true.

Originally posted by cinemabon
In the name of Christ we currently have, in this country, a battle of our own going on. Namely, who is going to control the Congress and how the constitution is interpreted. For two thousand years zealots have quoted Christ for their own gain, starting at the Vatican to gain power through intimidation and fear. If Christ were alive today, he would weep over what the Christians have done in his name.

He certainly would... humanity is an imperfect executor of the trust given them by the teaching of Jesus Christ ... but, at the same time, no one should lose sight either of all the good that has been done in his name. No other religious tradition comes even remotely close to matching the works of social justice and charity in every part of the world that have been accomplished over two millennia by the Christian Church and its adherents.

[Johann]

Old Italian Proverb:

A barrel of wine can produce more miracles than a church full of priests

[JustaFied]

Now, now Johann, you're just asking for trouble with that comment. Little miracles abound everywhere...


But, back to the ponderous topic of anti-semitism in Mel's new passion play, here's the opinion of a prominent Washington Post columinist (published in today's Houston Chronicle):

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...torial/2435779

One issue that he brings up that hasn't been discussed much here either is the presence of Satan in the film:

<The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found ... where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people. >

Someone on this board said that it appears that Christians and Jews are seeing two different movies. As a non-practicing "skeptic", I'm just trying to look at this as objectively as possible. Funny, I seem to agree with most everything Anduril has posted. It seems to me that Gibson has failed at properly "contextualizing" the story in its place in history (which might be more effective in explaining the actions of the Jews and the Romans at the time), while at the same time taking liberties with the Gospels themselves. The result is an inaccurate piece of work, both from an historical and a biblical point of view (not mutually exclusive, mind you).

[anduril]

The point you make here is quite accurate... the appearances of Satan in the movie are quite disturbing and biblically inaccurate. It is very interesting to note that the only mention of a divine being in the Garden of Gethsemane, e.g., is in Luke 22:43, which mentions that an angel from heaven came to comfort and strengthen Jesus. In fact, this angel from heaven is the only divine being ever mentioned in the Passion accounts with the exception of Jesus and the Father of course.

[Johann]

Hey, I was just posting an old proverb...

[JustaFied]

Many, many people are going to see this movie, that's for sure. I am thankful for the advent of the Internet, which allows them (and us) to discuss and debate the film with people beyond their (and our) normal social circle. It inevitably will lead to a better understanding of the story of Christ.

Great discussion on this site, much of it well thought-out and articulated. IMDb.com now has 161 pages of posts on this film. 161! I can't possibly wade through all those posts, and many of them appear to be hateful and close-minded. But, as I said, at least the forum is there for them to see other viewpoints.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by Johann
Hey, I was just posting an old proverb...

"Gotta serve somebody? I serve myself." - John Lennon

[Johann]

Absolutely buddy!

[cinemabon]

I didn't want to come across as mean spirited. I just feel that everytime a filmmaker comes out with a film about Jesus the lines are drawn in the sand. If you take a stand for realism then you are labeled a heretic.

If you remember, the gospels were not written until over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Many of them had a thorough going over in places like the Council of Trent and at the hands of St. Augustine.

In my mind, the underlying message of spirituality that says we must love our brethren if we are to become a more civil society is far more important and profound than torture, suffering, and guilt about who is to blame and what those consequences might be. Gibson focused on the wrong aspect. All too frequently, we all do. We focus on death and mayhem. Then we say, "He suffered for us." But that tends to draw away from his life and the message spread during that life. A message that shook the foundation of his own religion, and has been at the core of what defines decency ever since.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
If you take a stand for realism then you are labeled a heretic.

To what are you referring here?

Originally posted by cinemabon
If you remember, the gospels were not written until over a hundred years after the death of Christ.

This is wrong. Jesus's death and resurrection took place sometime between 28-33 C.E. The first Gospel, probably Mark, was written by ca. 60-75 C.E. The other Gospels were probably written by ca. 80-90 C.E., though it is possible that John was written (or least later redacted) ca. 100-110 C.E. (some also date Matthew to ca. 100-120 C.E.). In other words, all the Gospels were written within a hundred years of the time of Christ not "over a hundred years after the death of Christ."

Also, Matthew and Luke may have been based on earlier source material, namely a sayings source ("Q"), that could derive right from the time of Jesus or at least shortly thereafter. Furthermore, if we take Luke at his word, he investigated and interviewed relevant witnesses (including perhaps Mary) in the process of writing his Gospel.

The letters of Paul (those actually ascribed to him by scholars), which also talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus, were written even earlier than the canonical Gospels. Paul likely converted to Christianity somewhere between 30-36 C.E. (depending on how one dates the death and resurrection of Jesus) and he died in the summer of 64 C.E. The earliest writings in the New Testament, therefore, may date as early as 41-43 C.E..

Originally posted by cinemabon
Many of them had a thorough going over in places like the Council of Trent and at the hands of St. Augustine.

This is completely, totally, and utterly false. There are many many manuscripts of these Gospels that date prior to the time of St. Augustine (and certainly the Council of Trent). No collection of ancient literature, not even Greek classics, are as well attested the Bible, Old and New Testaments. Classicists could only dream of having the sheer plethora of manuscripts available to biblical scholars.

[Cowman]

Originally posted by anduril


I largely agree with what you've written in this part of review above, though I'd qualify the statement "the Jewish religious leaders" by writing "some Jewish religious leaders" in order to share the same spirit as your second sentence and your statement later on that "specific individuals in the Jewish religious leadership were culpable."

In any case, however, while you've contextualized the drama of the Passion of the Christ with an outline of the political situation in which the events take place, the movie itself does not. Most of these political nuances (as well as others you've failed to mention) are largely absent from the movie. This is what makes the movie dangerous on its own.



There are no historical documents, other than Christian gospels, that attest to the points that you have made here. Also, the Christian gospels are not identical in their presentation of Pilate nor do they give any concrete evidence of the motivation behind Pilate's indecision. Only some later, apocryphal, Christian documents suggest that Pilate's indecision stemmed from sympathy towards Jesus.



Of course not! I only wish Gibson would have made a movie that could have. Instead, what this movie can do, and this is the crux of the argument, is inflame that person's anti-Semitism.



Perhaps not an anti-Semite but they may come away with the position that "the Jews" wanted him dead. For instance, I saw this movie again just today with a good friend who afterwards, in our discussions, asked me, "So the Jews wanted to kill him, right?" In other words, this friend (a non-Christian, otherwise unfamiliar with the story of Jesus, and not an anti-Semite) left the theatre with the impression that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. Clearly, in his case, this does not make him an anti-Semite but it does mean that had I not been able to answer his question he would have taken this anti-Semitic perspective into his subsequent interactions. This is the beginning of ethnic stereotypes that have the potential to lead to anti-Semitism.

**APPLAUDS**

You know, of all the reviews I have read regarding this film, you are the first person who was able to actually articulate the concerns I had about it. I had been trying for weeks to write something that had precisely the same effect as your response here, but I guess I don't have enough patience or a big enough vocabulary... Hats off to you for this excellent post. I'm sure a lot more people feel the way you do, we just don't quite know how to say it. :)

[anduril]

Thank-you for your generous comments. I appreciate the feedback on my posts.