The Passion Of The Christ

I think it's antisemitic garbage, pushed by a fringe Catholic, with zero claim to historical accuracy. What do you think?

quote:

---

We already knew that Gibson's efforts to be "as truthful as possible" (his own words in the Times) would be frustrated by the best sources that he had to draw on, namely, the Gospels themselves. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more.

​

- see THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GIBSON

---

I really despise blatant ignorance. There is little about the script, Gibson, and Gibson's fringe religious beliefs that is unknown. Maybe you should learn something before embarrassing yourself, beginning with the antisemitic history and consequences of the "Christ-Killer" claim. Does this include admiration for the following?

quote:

---

We are Roman Catholic professors who were part of an ad hoc group of scholars recently called together by expert staff members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League to review a version of the screenplay of the Mel Gibson film, The Passion. ...

​

The Emmerich work contains such extra-biblical elements as:

• Jesus' cross being constructed at the orders of the high priest in the courtyard of the Temple.
• Servants of the high priest bribing fellow Jews to demand Jesus' death and even paying some of his crucifiers.
• Violence far beyond what the gospels present during Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas and Annas.
• Pontius Pilate criticizing the high priests for physically abusing Jesus and suggesting that they are thirsting for both his body and blood (cf. John 6:53).
• Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.
• Pilate stating that he fears the high priest is planning a revolt against Rome.

Numerous other scenes not present in the New Testament could be cited from the Emmerich book, but those noted here all have the effect of increasing the guilt of Jewish characters for Jesus' sufferings. It would not be an exegetical theory to criticize any dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus that incorporated such non-biblical features.

​

- see Dramatizing the Death of Jesus

---

Go read something. Your naive ignorance disgusts me.

Do you know how to read?

Good, but that was not my point. If you had taken the time to read through the various threads on this site, you would have found that my participation is far from limited to "Jesus". In fact, I find the NT to be rather banal. I'm far more interested in the Tanach and Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Your ad hominem attack was simply and precictably not very good.

Have you been paying attention?How interesting it is that you focus on "the ancient Jews" and say nothing about the Romans. Why do you think you told "the story of Jesus" the way you did? How many "ancient Jews" killed Jesus? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand? Was it "a few Jews", or "some Jews" or "the ancient Jews"?You come here, having done zero research, and present yourself as the voice of reason. In fact, in your own naive and transparent way, you symbolize the problem.

No, he was pointing out the Jesus was killed by "the ancient Jews". What do you think? Do you agree with this statement?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-24-2004]

Perhaps we should move this to a different thread, but on what grounds do you believe this to be the case? Luke is presumed to be a late 1st century production, authored half a century after the purported event, by an apologist who witnessed nothing.The Passion story is a confused second hand account lacking in credibility and wholly devoid of evidence.

Got it. If your heart tells you that "the ancient Jews" did it, why worry about a lack of evidence? And if the stories were being formulated at a time when it made perfect sense to appease the Romans and demonize the Jews, why give credence to such a context? And if the story has a long, incendiary history of promulgating antisemitic attacks, why should anyone let that disturb their Christian heart? Let's just close our eyes and open our heart to the blood and gore of Gibson's Passion. Perhaps next week we can gather again and talk about how Cristians killed Martin Luther King.

Really? OK. Let's see if we can agree who some of these "bad people and some bad Christians" were:

• A Catholic Timeline of Events
• A Comparison of Canon Law and Nazi Measures
• Martin Luter: The Jews and Their Lies
• Goebbels and Hitler

This is, of course, only a partial list. Let me ask you a question: have you ever read anything on the history of pogroms? Perhaps you would benefit from reading

• Constantine's Sword: : The Church and the Jews -- A History

You have no reason to presume that they were ever anythine else.By the way, I notice that, as you wallow in faith, you studiously avoud comment on the content of Carroll's book and the other items quoted. It's as if this capacity to tread holy water increases ones capacity to ignore/condone antisemtism.

We are not talking about [i]"some who profess"[i]. We are talking about a foundation of Christianity over some 15 centuries.

I suggest that the most reasonable reading of the Passion narrative suggests it to be a largely fictive legend layered with anti-Judaism, i.e., a story molded at a time when the Jerusalem cult had been defeated and replaced by the gentile mission of, first Paul, and then John, a time when these Christians were developing the pervasive and vitriolic hatred of the Jews that would later be codified as referenced above, and a time, between Masada and bar Kochba, when targeting the Jews, raher than Pontius Pilatus, made good tactical as well as dogmatic sense. Of course not. Where have I done so?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-26-2004]

There are really three issues surround the film. Is the narrative historically accurate? Is the narrative potentially incendiary? Is the narrative portrayed by Gibson in a manner to maximize its incendiary effect?Taken in reverse order ...3. It's impossible to know Gibson's intent. It is clear, however, that he paints his characters in such a way as to maximixe the nature of the crime, minimize Pilate's culpability, and focus of the Jewish leadership as the most despicable force behind the crucifixian.2. Clearly, yes.1. I believe that most scholars would argue that the Passion narrative was written and redacted during the period bracketed by Masada and bar Kochba. It was, as you suggest, a period characterized by the victory of the Gentile Mission over the Jerusalem church, a period that resulted in the pervasive anti-Jewish vitriol that later resulted in a whole serious of antisemitic measures.The narrative, with its progression from Mark to John, has all the qualities of legend creation/embellishment at a time when hatred of the Jews was endemic to the movement, while painting Pilate as a sympathetic figure in the clutches of a Jewish conspiracy could only serve to appease Rome.

You saw a long-haired Jesus speaking Latin, a pervasively evil and manipulative High Priest (those damn rich Jews are behind everything), and a weak and thoroughly sympathetic Pilate. That you found this "plausible" says a great deal more about you than anything else.