NEWS: Liberal Christians Fight Back

What a simplistic angle. Because the passion film was biblically accurate in some components, it was entirely biblical? How silly.

At the time this film came out, I frequently taught a Bible as Literature class(as a GA).This is a list of interpolations I scribbled down for my lecture, with additions where students, colleagues and/or other resources brought them to my attention. Further research, done by others, reveals that the majority of them were likely borrowed from The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is partially based on the Gospel accounts(the other more prominent part it is based upon were the delusional ramblings of a mentally disturbed anti-semite nun), but is without a doubt extra-biblical and absolutely non-canonical.

******
- Satan torments Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane
- Mary wakes up, sensing Jesus’s arrest
- Soldiers throw Jesus off a bridge
- Jesus is abused when before the priests
- Jesus, as a young carpenter, is at home with Mary
- During court scene, Mary prays, “It has begun Lord. So be it.”
- After denying Jesus three times, Peter runs to Mary, weeping and calling her “Mother.”
- Satan and his minions torment Judas
- When Jesus is first brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate beholds his bloody, bruised condition and asks members of the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) if they always beat prisoners prior to trial
- The Bible references Pilate's wife only once, and not by name; she sends her husband a message about Jesus saying, "Have nothing to do with this righteous man--I have suffered much in a dream because of him." In the film, Pilate and his wife have several conversations about what he should do.
- Effeminate Herod is depicted amidst cushions
- Effeminate Herod calls Jesus a fool and commands that Jesus be given a fool’s homage
- Jesus is scourged against a pillar in the center of a courtyard. The scourging culminates with the use of chains with barbs that tear chunks off his back. Jesus is then rotated so the soldiers can scourge the other side. Mary is prominent throughout the scene
- Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called Jew with a sneer
- Pilate’s wife hands white linens to Mary, who uses these to wipe Jesus’s blood from the floor
- Mary Magdalene recalls Jesus preventing her from being stoned and writing on the ground
- When nailed to the cross, after the first hand is nailed, Jesus’ other arm is stretched out with a sickening crunch to reach the hole provided for the nail. The soldiers also subject Jesus to more agony as they stretch his body out to the wooden footrest that they placed too low.
- Mary cries, “Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you.”
- A soldier is showered by Jesus’ blood after piercing His side
- And of course, Satan, complete with the idiotic 13 year old Fangoria reading fanboy representation of Satan, with demon baby accessory, being at the crucifixion
- Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and a Christian rebellion on the other. While that is how the Gospels portray him, historians insist that Pilate was known by his rough treatment of Jews in general, and was responsible for crucifying many Jews during his reign. (in lieu of typing out this same thought myself I cribbed this particular wording from Wikipedia)
- The High Priest is shown as if he a were a member in good standing of the Jewish community; historians note that the Jews were not allowed to appoint their own High Priest according to Biblical law, and that the High Priest at the time was in the service of the Roman government. (in lieu of typing out this same thought myself I cribbed this particular wording from Wikipedia)
******

Gibson, in his script, picked and chose from among all four gospels, the Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ(which contains almost all of the non-biblical references listed above), The Gospel of the Ebionites(non-Biblical), The Gospel of Peter, The Stations of the Cross, and I imagine several other sources that I have not been able to identify - an element here, an instance there - creating from his montage a fifth "gospel" that has never existed. The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malicious the Jews are. There are many examples in the film of a preposterous dialectic: the bad Jews and the good Romans. When the Temple police arrest Jesus, Mary Magdalene turns to the Romans as if they were the policemen on the block, benign protectors of the public order. The idea of a Jewish woman turning to Roman soldiers for help is ridiculous.

Your claim that the film is "Scripturally correct" rings as hollow as your dismissal of the perceived anti-semitic elements contained within. The Bible does not hold shots of a snarling, near orgasmic Caiaphas watching Jesus's prolonged torture. Neither does it linger on a clearly upset, pained Pontius Pilate, regretting giving in to the cruel, villainous, bloodthirsty people of Jerusalem. Or Pilate's wife being haunted by her husband's action/inaction. The film is based on the Gospels, along with several other sources, but that hardly makes it scripturally accurate. No first-century person, whether victim or victimizer, ever laid eyes on a cross like the 8 ft. x 15 ft. one lugged around Gibson's Jerusalem. That cross, like the nails "through" Caviezel's palms, owes more to the conventions of medieval Christian art than to first-century Roman executions. Even if the film were entirely "Scripturally correct" it would still be open to Gibson's narrative decisions because the Gospels are inconsistent. Simon is not there to assist Jesus carrying the cross in the Gospel of John. What is the litmus test for deciding to side with the Synoptics over John? I guess it can be both scripturally correct and incorrect all at once.

All of the factually interpretive elements aside, I am infinitely more disturbed by the archaic middle age(literally) theology behind Passion plays. There are many ways of putting Jesus at risk and making us feel his suffering. Resorting to horse whipping for 2 hours is the most base and meaningless way that I can come up with off the top of my head. The Crucifixion has been dramatized with a curious fixation on the technical details—an arm pulled out of its socket, huge nails hammered into hands, with Caviezel jumping after each whack. Gibson lingers on violence because physical suffering is the best way for his dull brain to identify with Jesus's sacrifice. It is a spiritually sophomoric way of viewing the sacrifice, and it is one that, when viewed in total isolation(sans the ministry of Jesus) comes off as needlessly simplistic.

As usual, The Onion is right on the money.
Jesus Demands Creative Control Over Next Movie

[Edited on May 01, 2006 by Westley]

I find this quote particularly interesting, and an apt expression of the myopia of Christians when they discuss the development of Christianity. There was no possibility of a "Christian rebellion" on any hand, given that there were no such things as Christians and Jesus's following at the time was insufficient for Pilate to be concerned about at all.

Until about the beginning of the 2nd Century CE, "Christianity" was a sect of Judaism. Jesus sought to reform Judaism, not start a new religion (Heb 9:10). It was only after these efforts at declaring Jesus the Messiah failed that the message began to be spread among Gentiles. In Acts 21:17-26 Paul - more than anyone responsible for the establishment of the Christian Church even took a Nazarite vow to prove to his critics that he was a Torah-observant Jew.

After the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, interest in a Messiah began to grow but there were two sects and in fact war of sorts broke out between them - this is what caused the break between the Nazarenes and other Jews. In the second century, theologians and church fathers became more concerned with "making the break" with anything Jewish, beginning to take an uncompromising posture of theological and political opposition. Anti Jewish sentiment changed New Testament interpretation. For instance:

- the promises of blessing to Israel in the Hebrew scriptures were now the exclusive property of the Church
- God has cursed and rejected Israel, and now the Church was the "true" or "new" Israel; and
- the Jews killed Jesus; all Jews everywhere forever were forever responsible for his death.

This to me, is what makes the whole of Gibson's S&M epic a total crock. There was no Jewish hated of Christians, or vice versa - it was all an internal political struggle. The Romans thought the whole lot were a pain in the ass.

For the most part I tried to avoid the historical details and remain focused on what I believe is a deceptive if not entirely false notion: that Gibson's Passion & passion plays in general are scripturally correct.

Attempting to insert historical perspective on the Bible meets with a great deal of resistance among many. But, just to piggy back on this point, i would like to make this point about much of the Gospels, and specific to a scene in Gibson's film, the Gospel of Matthew. These books were aimed at communities. They were not attempting to write historical narratives for generations to come, they were attempting to recruit. When Matthew writes "His blood be upon us and upon our children" he is not condemning a race or religion of people for eternity, he is quite literally referring to the destruction of the temple as their punishment. Look what we did, and look what we got, sign here. No first century Jew would have rejected the Sanhedrin for a splinter group talking about things happening two thousand years from now. The synoptic Gospels are about the moment, as in the era they were written, as in several decades after the person who came to be recognized as Jesus was put to death. Gibson and dullard literalists around the world would like you to believe that the person who wrote this story was an actual eyewitness and that he was standing right there watching as Jesus was crucified and wrote it all down as soon as he got the chance. These are the same people who can not even come to understand that there WAS NO NATION OF ISRAEL WHEN THE EVENTS OF EXODUS TOOK PLACE, IT'S A GODDAMN EPIC COMBINING THE ORIGIN TRADITIONS OF ALL THE TRIBES THAT EVENTUALLY CAME TO FORM ISRAEL. The Jews understand this. Try explaining it to a Christian. So, you know, what can you do?

Ian Mckellen made a comment on Real Time this past weekend that really hit the point well. Something to the affect of being amused by the notion that so many Christians feel it necessary to take literally a book re-translated over and over about a man who regularly spoke in parables.

[Edited on May 01, 2006 by Westley]

Exactly, which is what explains the contradictions between them. They were aimed at different audiences and thus chose to say different things about Jesus.

I always just recommend a great book - The Closing of the Western Mind - it does a great and brief job explaining the details of the New Testament Apocrypha.

Saw that. Loved it.

[Edited on May 01, 2006 by Westley]

^^
Speaking of final papers, that post had a much higher word count than any of mine.

The behavior of people on this thread reminds me why I dislike the majority of people that claim to be christians.

Where is the "turn the other cheek, lover thy neighbour" etc..etc... stuff..? Instead we get personal insults galore, and gauntlet throwing...

Most buddhists are more christian, than most christians in my experience.

Edit..

I just re-read this and started laughing.. Lover thy neighbour....Erm wait that is polyamory, not christianity..sorry, I get confused on occasion.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by joker_c86]

Hmm... my Aunt is a Christian and almost always votes a straight democratic ticket. Same for my Grandmother. Primarily, their concern is for the lower and middle class and getting people (primarily minorities, and the handicapped) the help they need. Although they may or may not agree with some democrats stances on abortion and homosexuality, they are still democrats. As a matter of fact, not all senators and representatives affiliated with the democratic party support the party's stance on abortion and homosexuality.
Personally, I used to be a liberal Christian- I was completely for homosexual marriage and rights, I didn't accept the scripture I was spoon-fed in church, I was well aware of the flaws and misinterpretations in the Bible. I believed in Jesus Christ 110% but eventually got fed up with the dogma. It's not at all accurate to paint the entire Christian community with a broad "extreme religious right" brush. Nor is it accurate to paint the entire Democratic Party with an "uber liberal" brush. These are groups made up of individuals with numerous very different mindsets.

[Edited on May 02, 2006 by starchild228]