QUESTIONING 'PASSION' AND THE GOSPEL TRUTH (crossing over into Christian-hating)

NY POST ^ | February 21, 2004 | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[joesbucks]

What in the world are you talking about??!! You have obviously misunderstood me. My #49 and your #50 state essentially the same thing. Exactly what did I say that was so upsetting to you?

You touched someone's third rail. So instead of engaging in debate or seeking to clarify, you were attacked. That's not uncommon here.

[wimpycat]

My thoughts are that whoever wrote this review of the film is highly subjective in his characterizations; that's about the best thing I can say about this review.

[joesbucks]

Highly subjective or scripturally correct?

[gogipper]

And is it similarly not possible that Gibson has done this as a combination of his Christian faith and his artistic sensibilities?

[wimpycat]

In attacking the scriptural accuracy of the film, in accusing Mel of injecting his own opinion into the film, the reviewer proceeds to inject his own opinion and mention as "fact" things which the Gospels do not address. In other words, he attacks perceived bias with bias of his own. What is an "excessively large" crowd? The gospels don't mention the number, so who's to say what is "excessively large"? What is "weak and indecisive"? The gospels don't mention whether Pilate was a strong or a weak leader in the big scheme of the Roman Empire. Who is this reviewer to say Gibson portrayed him as "weak and indecisive" when the gospels are silent on the point? What is "exaggerated and excessive" violence? I could go on and on, but it's not worth the effort. The reviewer is injecting his own negative bias into his review.

As far as scriptural accuracy, such as Jews being in the Praetorium, when scripture says otherwise, I can only point you to my favorite Jesus film, Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". Zefirelli switched a lot of stuff around, a whole lot. He switched around who said what, who did what, where Jesus was when he said certain things, and also certain sequences of events. He added non-Scriptural characters (such as Veronica and Zerah) while leaving out certain other characters (such as Simon of Cyrene, the Samaritan woman). Yet the movie still sells very well in Christian bookstores and is still shown on TV, and like I said, it's still my favorite movie about Jesus. So, your idea of what it means to be "scripturally accurate" is obviously different from mine.

[joesbucks]

I believe there are two debates about Mel's film. Those with something to capitalize on and those who may question the authenticity of the depiction based on the scripture.

I find it funny when those of faith run to the aid of someone taking literary liscense with the scriptures. <pIt may be one thing to amplify, it's quite another to be contrary to the text.

[Clintons a commie]

In Mel's version, the beating of Jesus begins immediately upon his arrest, contrary to the Gospels

How is this contrary to the Gospels? Is there a hidden passage somewhere that says "And they didn't start beating Jesus until after His arrest"? The Gospels don't record each and every event of the Passion. I'm sure Our Lord was subjected to pain and indignities that we'll never be aware of until the Last Judgement. And Gibson's film, as brutal as it is, is probably even tame compared to the truth.

[Clintons a commie]

Zefirelli switched a lot of stuff around, a whole lot. He switched around who said what, who did what, where Jesus was when he said certain things, and also certain sequences of events. He added non-Scriptural characters (such as Veronica and Zerah) while leaving out certain other characters (such as Simon of Cyrene, the Samaritan woman). Yet the movie still sells very well in Christian bookstores and is still shown on TV, and like I said, it's still my favorite movie about Jesus. So, your idea of what it means to be "scripturally accurate" is obviously different from mine.

These are great points. I love Zeffirelli's film too, and I love some of the filling in of the gaps(ie, Ian Holm's Zerah, a masterful character and performance). But it's very true, much of it is pure speculation. Gibson's film, from the sound of it, is much truer to the Gospels.

[gogipper]

 

This took about 10 minutes work, and I think it refutes the strongest scriptural objections of the reviewer.  The reviewer's test precedes scriptural quotations.................

 

“beating of Jesus begins immediately upon his arrest, contrary to the Gospels”……  Luke  23:63   Meanwhile the men who guarded Jesus were mocking and beating him

 

So is the reviewer quibling about the meaning of the word beating? 

 

“The priests, temple guards, and people are growing ugly. But instead of putting them in their place, as the historical Pilate would have done, they are appeased.” …….John 18:38  and with that he (Pilate) went out to the Jews and said, “I find no case against him . But according to a custom of yours……    John 19:4  Pilate came outside again and said to them, “Look, I am going to bring him out to you to let you see that I find no case.

  

Sounds like appeasement to me.

 

“According to John, the Jews refuse to enter the Praetorium. No Jew--not even a disciple--is depicted as present in the Praetorium. But Gibson has them there “………….John 18:17  So Pilate came outside to them and said…..

  

Are we really objecting to the background selection of the director?

 

“The temple is hit hardest…....Luke 23:45”   The veil of the temple was torn down the middle

 

Another area the review hits upon is the politics of Roman rule vs. Jewish subjugation.  I have seen several of these discussions and frankly it is like listening to a foreign language.  The meaning of Jesus' sacrifice was not political and the 'players' in the drama (Pilate, Caiphas, Judas, etc.) are far less important than the meta-meaning of our salvation.

 

One last point of the review is how much elaboration Gibson uses.  Well if you read the Passion together out loud it probably doesn't take more than 20 minutes.  It is a narrative, not a drama.  If we are going to translate a narrative into a drama.... which is very important in our increasingly illiterate world.... then there will have to be dramatic touches.  That is the nature of the art. So yes. The reviewer is scriptually incorrect.

[wimpycat]

I appreciate your candor, and I have no negative feelings about you personally because we don't agree. But quite frankly, I'm tired. Jesus was, is, and always will be a divisive figure in the world. We have been told from the beginning that we will always be under attack. But sometimes it just wears me out. I have seen so much constant trashing of the film and the filmmaker that I've forgotten all the good things that the film has generated, such as Christians of different denominations coming together and working together and celebrating what we share. It isn't spiritually healthy to constantly wallow in negativity. I can only say that what you see, and what I see when we look at the film are two very different things. We'll just have to leave it at that. I'm looking forward to seeing the film, and I want to view it in the right spirit; that means I'm going to go to the theater with an open mind and an open heart. I will not be thinking of those who attack the message of the film (no matter in what guise they choose to carry out such attacks-whether diversionary or direct). I will be pondering the central message, an example of which can be found in John 3:16-21. Next to that message, details such as Jews inside or outside the Praetorium or how many people comprised the crowd, or how many lashes Jesus got are put into their proper perspective.

Besides, it's warm and sunny outide, I've got laundry and housework to do, so not only do I not have the energy, I also have neither the time nor the inclination to be constantly focusing on the negative today.

[joesbucks]

The events I give are not mine depiction, rather they belong to someone else. I'm asking for verification. Does the movie in fact reflect the story as described in the gospels?

[joesbucks]

Appreciate your thoghts and candor. Have a great day.

Besides, it's warm and sunny outide.

Trade you places. Dismal, overcast and chilly here.

[2nd Amendment]

well-stated!

[Tench_Coxe]

"Others besides Abe Foxman have objected to both aspects of the movie and the manner in which Gibson has promoted it. From the get-go there were CHRISTIANS who found fault with it, yet, only the small number of Jews who sniped with Gibson have gotten press play."

And the Christians you mention that are most often quoted are the 'Jesus Seminar' types, who all but deny who the Christ was, despite written scripture ( in case you've missed the irony, one of the tenets of Christianity is to believe in the Resurrection, and the unique nature of Jesus as God and man ). The media, at least in the articles posted here, always seems to omit this important fact.

"The fact is that Gibson's father is out there saying things David Duke and Streicher might say, and there is no reason to ignore his rantings, just because he is Mel Gibson's father. The old man is in fact injecting himself into the debate."

Just as Christians are not to hold Jews responsible for the actions committed by their forebears ( and, I would point out, both Jesus' followers and detractors were Jews. The point of the Gospels is that it is the sins of mankind that was responsible for the events of the Passion--the Pharisees were bit players in the larger scheme of things ) in the Gospels, one cannot hold the son guilty for the words and actions of the father.

"I have not seen the movie and I have not opined about it, neither calling it awesome or not. I have reacted to various articles on, and what I KNOW, from my years working in Hollywood is, a very well-orchestrated and in fact brilliant PR campaign to generate interest in the film."

I haven't seen the movie, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate to your comment here.
If you produced a movie that challenges a lot of cherished sacred cows in an industry that has the ability to prevent distribution, would you not also approach the audience for which it is intended directly, rather than attempt to pass through a brick wall?
If indeed, there is truth to your assumption, that does not necessarily detract from the merits or lack of merits of the work itself.
Also, do you know for a fact that the controversy is an intentional PR campaign? Have you been told by those working closest to the film that this is what was intended from the beginning? If not, then you are engaging in speculation ( no law against it, just an observation).
Foxman has injected himself into the scene. Unless there is proof that he is on Gibson's payroll, he has inadvertently provided more publicity for a movie whose theme he obviously loathes.

[wimpycat]

I'd be happy to trade places with you if you're willing to clean out these two closets of mine, sort everything out, throw a lot of other stuff out, and move the rest to my brand new shed...As you can see, I'm procrastinating. :-) Even though I tell myself I'm just trying to map out an organized, disciplined plan of action.

[Liz]

Devalued? On the contrary, I have elevated the term. It's especially relevant here because, in American culture, the word is consistently used as a political weapon, especially against conservatives.

Ever hear of so-called "Hate Crimes?" These are "crimes" which only "Thought Police" are allowed to define.....usually against conservative speech.

Other good synonyms for hate are despise, detest, abhor, abominate, execrate, loathe, contemn, disdain, scorn.

Scornful....now that's a good word---- with Biblical connotations----to describe those who disdain The Passion of Christ movie.

[Contra]

Some Jews are either very paranoid or out and out anti-Christian, or some of both. Jews had a hand in killing Jesus and Jesus was Jewish too, duh. Listen to some of what Jews are saying about Christians these days and you would think you are listening to an atheist or a muslim. And the funny thing is, many Christians are the best friends Jews could ever have, very supportive of Judaism as it is also an important part of their faith. If Christians start to feel some anti-semitism it won't be due to what Jews did to Jesus, it will be due to what Jews of today do and say towards Christians.

[R. Scott]

It's especially relevant here because, in American culture, the word is consistently used as a political weapon, especially against conservatives.

It is used so much in the political/social context that it is rapidly losing its meaning.
I still refuse to go along with the anti - whatever crowd.

[Liz]

No problem. Suit yourself. And if you come up with a good word to use for hate, let us know.

[Psycho_Bunny]

My Southern Baptist grandfather - a racist who vehemently hated Catholics (we're Huguenots) - once said that you shouldn't ever say anything bad about Jews in general, because "they're God's chosen people".