"The Passion"'s dirty little secret

[Taur]

Wow the visuals look great on the trailers/clips I have seen. But, something is missing. The scenes with people actually talking. I wonder why all the clips circulating do not show anyone talking?

Could it be that it is because this movie is going to be presented in Ancient Arabic ???


I know that Mel Gibson is a member of the New Reformed Catholic church, they perform their masses in latin, but why would you make a movie in a language that less than 1% of the potential audience could understand? WTF!!!

[sabotai]

Because Mel Gibson is not that bright...

[DanGarion]

Because he can Taur... Because he can!

[Hurst2112]

Not too bright?

Why is that?

I think that if it is indeed in another language, it will add to the mood of the film, essentially making it better to watch.

I'd rather have it in an ancient language than have them speak with a Brittish accents (Jesus of Nazareth)

Look at it as an artistic decision, not one to please the masses. Hell, if that was the case, Jesus would look like a white guy at a fish concert.

[MrBug708]

I knew it was going to be in Aramaic since about September, not sure how that is much of a secret?!?

[MrBug708]

Dola


I wonder how long til the ACLU claims this film is Anti-Semitic

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Dola


I wonder how long til the ACLU claims this film is Anti-Semitic

I don't know about the ACLU, but there have been many other groups that have already made that claim.

[Hurst2112]

Side note....

I watched ESPN today and they showed a car in the Daytona 500 that has the front hood covered with "The Passion" movie advertisements. It was the interstate battery car (Gibbs team? Not sure).

Clever marketing? Exploitation? Dr Jack Van Impe will decide.

[mckerney]

This is a secret?

[sabotai]

I think that if it is indeed in another language, it will add to the mood of the film, essentially making it better to watch.

Notice how well foreign films do in this country? And those are in languages that some people can understand. It's fine if he wants to make a movie for his fellow hardcore jesus boys, but if he wants to market this as a movie for the masses, then I stand by my statement that he's not too bright. Trying to do that will be throwing money down the drain.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Notice how well foreign films do in this country? And those are in languages that some people can understand. It's fine if he wants to make a movie for his fellow hardcore jesus boys, but if he wants to market this as a movie for the masses, then I stand by my statement that he's not too bright. Trying to do that will be throwing money down the drain.

I think you're wrong about the money (some theatres here have already been bought out for the first three weeks), but I don't think his main pont is making money. He wanted the movie to be as close to the first century as possible, and that means Aramaic (not arabic by the way). It was the language (along with the language of trade, Greek) of first century Palestine.

This is a prestege picture, not a "blockbuster" big budget film.

[stevew]

I think Luis and sheridan will finally reunite. And Some day Gwen will catch on to the fact that Beth is trying to kill her. And I dont like the storyline of Charity becoming a slut. I believe once she loses her virginity, the world will end.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Notice how well foreign films do in this country? And those are in languages that some people can understand. It's fine if he wants to make a movie for his fellow hardcore jesus boys, but if he wants to market this as a movie for the masses, then I stand by my statement that he's not too bright. Trying to do that will be throwing money down the drain.

Ive been called a lot of things but never a "hardcore Jesus boy"

Kinda catchy...

Perhaps he doesn't want to make it a movie for the masses.

[stevew]

dola-
Wrong Passions

[kingfc22]

Yea, Mel Gibson is an idiot. Ever heard of Braveheart? I think he knows what he's doing. And this is not supposed to be an Independence Day type film. It's intended to be a movie that follows strictly to the story that is told in the Bible.

[Taur]

I have never understood the appeal of foreign langauge films to the critics. When I go overseas and see American movies they are always Dubbed into the "official" language of the country. Even in a coutry like Japan that has a higher literacy rate than the US our films. out dubbed. So, why is it that the US is the only country that refuses to convert foreign films?

Authenticity my eye:
I don't have to hear German to understand the holocaust.
My priest does not have to speak latin for me to completely understand the bible.
I don't have to know Cherokee to understand the plight of the American Indian.

So, making a movie in a dead language seems just plain stupid. I know I definitely wait untill the DVD comes out with an English track before I see this.

[Taur]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Yea, Mel Gibson is an idiot. Ever heard of Braveheart?

And, what language was Braveheart in?

[mckerney]

You're right Taur. I just hope we don't have more producer and directors sticking true to their artistic ideals rather than selling out for a blockbuster pay check.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think you're wrong about the money (some theatres here have already been bought out for the first three weeks), but I don't think his main pont is making money. He wanted the movie to be as close to the first century as possible, and that means Aramaic (not arabic by the way). It was the language (along with the language of trade, Greek) of first century Palestine.

This is a prestege picture, not a "blockbuster" big budget film.

Thank you, GD. You said everything I was going to (that Gibson was going for realism), and that the language is Aramaic, which no doubt does influence the Arabic language as many of the dialects of the area would evenutally, but was not really an "ancient Arabic" language.

CR

[Hurst2112]

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a great movie when you watched it in Chinese. I tried watching it in English and I didn't like it as much.

[Taur]

Originally Posted by mckerney

You're right Taur. I just hope we don't have more producer and directors sticking true to their artistic ideals rather than selling out for a blockbuster pay check.

How do you get from point A to point B. Did the church "Sell-Out" when they translated the bible from hebrew to Latin? Would the Bible be a better book if it was still in a foreign language and not understandable by the masses?

If a painter paints a picture in a color not viewable to the human eye is he any more artistic?
If a composer writes an opera in a key not hearable by the human ear is he any more artistic?
If a Chef creates a dessert not digestable by the human stomach is he any more artistic?

So, why is a man who creates a Movie in a language not understanable by the human population considered more artistic?

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by Taur

How do you get from point A to point B. Did the church "Sell-Out" when they translated the bible from hebrew to Latin? Would the Bible be a better book if it was still in a foreign language and not understandable by the masses?

If a painter paints a picture in a color not viewable to the human eye is he any more artistic?
If a composer writes an opera in a key not hearable by the human ear is he any more artistic?
If a Chef creates a dessert not digestable by the human stomach is he any more artistic?

So, why is a man who creates a Movie in a language not understanable by the human population considered more artistic?

Doesn't all make sense.

I can WATCH a film and understand what is happening because of the acting. If an Jewish man cries for a reason you can translate on FILM, it doesn't matter what language he speaks.

As far as the opera in an un-audible key...yes. It wouldn't appeal to masses, but for us that read music, we can see what he wrote and hear the piece in our heads. Not to mention that if he did write an opera in an un-audible key, how would he know what it sounded like?

paradoxial

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by stevew

dola-
Wrong Passions

That's funny! When I first saw the thread I thought it was about one of the actresses on the show (short-hair, actress name is McCarty) who has done a number of soft porn shows that keep showing up on Skinemax on Cable. All I can say is nice rack!!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Dola


I wonder how long til the ACLU claims this film is Anti-Semitic

Bart: What do we need church shoes for, Jesus wore sandals.
Homer: Well, maybe if he had better arch support they wouldn't have caught him.

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

Doesn't all make sense.

I can WATCH a film and understand what is happening because of the acting. If an Jewish man cries for a reason you can translate on FILM, it doesn't matter what language he speaks.

As far as the opera in an un-audible key...yes. It wouldn't appeal to masses, but for us that read music, we can see what he wrote and hear the piece in our heads. Not to mention that if he did write an opera in an un-audible key, how would he know what it sounded like?

paradoxial

As an expert at being pretentious, this smacks of it. It also reminds me a lot of the anime dubbed vs subbed one-sided debate but that's another story for another day. You say it's authentic and to watch his acting but that's just dismissing the importance of script and the whole notion that cinema encompasses more than just the sense of sight. It'd be like saying "Script be damned, Jim Carrey had good body language in Ace Ventura 2, let's give him the Oscar".

SI

[Ben E Lou]

I saw a pre-screening of The Passion Of The Christ back in January, complete with James Cavezil (the guy who played Jesus) talking to us afterward, and a recorded video greeting to the Young Life staff from Mel Gibson. It was pretty cool, to say the least. A few comments:

1. Mel Gibson wanted the spoken languages to be authentic. While we may or may not agree with that decision, my understanding is that most/all of the money that went into making this movie was Gibson's own, so if so it really is his business. The spoken languages in the movie are Aramaic, Ancient Latin (Romans, remember?), and I believe a bit of Hebrew as well.

2. It has English subtitles in the theater version. I don't get what the big deal is. Gibson wanted the spoken languages to be authentic, but was won over by several pre-screening groups that the movie needed English subtitles. This is commonly done for foreign-language films. (Heck, any time I watch a movie on DVD at home that is in English, I use the subtitles.)

3. It is very true to the Gospels. It is no more or no less anti-Semitic than the Gospel writings. The main time frame of the movie is only from Gethsemane (around midnight Thursday night/Friday morning) to Jesus' death (around 3pm Friday afternoon). Point being, there is not a lot of condensation of real-time going on, so virtually everything in the four Gospel accounts from arrest to death is covered--including the "hard" passages such as "His blood be upon us and our children." I heard a rumor (unauthenticated at this point) that he was considering removing that particular sentence from the final cut, but I'm not sure what the truth is there. From a human standpoint, the Gospels present Pilate as hesitant to have Jesus crucified, Herod as a bit of a doofus, and the Jewish religious leaders as the main ones desiring that Jesus be put to death, and the movie reflects this. From a spiritual standpoint, Gibson has maintained the truth: that every human being--past, present and future--is responsible for Jesus' death due to our sin condition. Again, it is very true to the Gospels.

In the next day or two, I'm going to be writing a more extended commentary about this movie for a newsletter that I sent out to donors, etc. I was planning on posting a copy of it here as well, and will do so.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

As a few have pointed out, the non-English thing wasn't remotely a secret. It has been out there for months. Further, the decision to include subtitles was made public as well. I specifically remember going into the screening thinking, "I wonder if they've put the subtitles in yet, or if that is going to be added at the end."

[Easy Mac]

I think that since Gibson funded this movie by himself, he can make it however he wanted... he even fought against the subtitles until the people releasing the movie made him do it. He wanted to do something and he did it. I think making this picture makes him far more bright than the people who made The Perfect Score or some other shitty movie of the past month.

And this looks like it will make a good deal of money regardless of the language.

[Joe Canadian]

While I'm not religious, and I may or may not see the film... one of the reasons people have the mindset that the film is going to be anti-semitic revolves around Gibson's own religion. It's my understanding that the "original" Catholic church, led by the current Pope, have tried and made strides in making mends with the Jewish community... basiclly saying that the death of Jesus was not their fault. However, in the Catholic spin-off that Gibson is a part of, that make a specific point not to recognize what the Pope has done in this area.

I don't claim to be a religious expert, but that's my understanding of the issues.

In this time of religious strife we live in, IMO it really doesn't help when you have one religion holding it something like this, that was done by only a certain part of the other religion... and it happened almost 2000 years ago, against another religion. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone who is a part of the Catholic spin-off in question, but this segment of that religion troubles me... and if I don't fully understand it I'd be happy to listen, open-mindedly, to an explanation.

[Solecismic]

The current issue of Newsweek does a good job showing where Gibson deviates from the Bible, accounts from the gospels and historic records in order to show the Jews in a much more negative light than is warranted.

Passions is no more an accurate picture of the crucifixion than Bowling for Columbine is a documentary.

Gibson's dad left the Catholic church over Vatican II, a seemingly harmless edict that absolved Jews of guilt. Given that Christianity stems from Judaism and the temple that played a major role in Christ's death was just one sect of many, the edict makes a lot of sense. Yet Hutton Gibson claimed Vatican II was part of a Jewish plot to take over the Catholic church. He also claims the Holocaust never happened.

So, Mel was raised in a fairly anti-semitic environment. It happens, and shouldn't be condemnation on its own.

But 12 years ago, Mel spent a lot of his money to create the same Vatican II-based church in California. There are only about 600 of these churches in the world. And he spent $25 million of his own money to create Passions, which, strangely enough, is as biblically accurate as possible with exception to the role the Jews played in these events.

Coincidence? Raised in anti-semitic household, spent a fortune on arguably anti-semitic pursuits? I think there's significant reason to believe Mel Gibson has dedicated a good part of his life to hatred of Jews.

I hope people of faith understand this, and take Passions with more than one grain of salt.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

While I'm not religious, and I may or may not see the film... one of the reasons people have the mindset that the film is going to be anti-semitic revolves around Gibson's own religion. It's my understanding that the "original" Catholic church, led by the current Pope, have tried and made strides in making mends with the Jewish community... basiclly saying that the death of Jesus was not their fault. However, in the Catholic spin-off that Gibson is a part of, that make a specific point not to recognize what the Pope has done in this area.

I don't claim to be a religious expert, but that's my understanding of the issues.

In this time of religious strife we live in, IMO it really doesn't help when you have one religion holding it something like this, that was done by only a certain part of the other religion... and it happened almost 2000 years ago, against another religion. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone who is a part of the Catholic spin-off in question, but this segment of that religion troubles me... and if I don't fully understand it I'd be happy to listen, open-mindedly, to an explanation.

I think the main issue is that many "Christian" sects would prefer to ignore the "hard" passages of the New Testament. There are several reasons for this, some of them perfectly understandable. The hard passages have been used over time (wrongly) as a "justification" for hate, racism, slavery, murder, war and just about everything else. However, some hard passages are ignored for PC-type reasons as well--they just don't sound "inclusive" or "touchy-feely" enough for the masses, is the thinking, I suppose. The result is that you have the Pope glossing over the hard passages--the ones that clearly from a human perspective lay the responsiblity at the feet of the Jewish leaders. (As I said earlier, from a spiritual perspective, every human being is responsible.) It sounds like Gibson's sect chooses to embrace the whole of the New Testament's teaching on this, rather than choose to focus on the easiest-to-accept aspect of it.

Here are some examples of some of the "tough" passages of the New Testament--both about this issue and a few others...

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."--Jesus speaking in John 14:6

"I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!"--Jesus speaking in John 8:58, claiming to be God.

"Men of Isreal, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man acceredited by God toyou by miracles, wonders and sings, which God did among you throgh him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross....Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."--portions of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem in Acts 2.

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus--from Paul's letter to Timothy (I Timothy 2:5)

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and receives in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."--Romans 1:27

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."--Romans 1:20

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: 'They why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make our of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"--Romans 9:18-21

I could go on, but I think you get the point. These aren't easy-to-swallow passages that fly in our "whatever-you-believe-is-fine-for-you-whatever-I-believe-is-fine-for-me" culture. They are very narrow. None can rightly be used as an excuse for hatred, inaction, etc., but unfortunately at times they are.

In short, I believe there is a misconception out there in the general populus (and inside the walls of many churches as well) that the Old Testament speaks of a God who is about law, wrath and justice, while the New Testament speaks of a God who is about mercy, love and grace. The reality is that both Testaments declare the totality of a God who is both perfect in justice and perfect in love. It is difficult/impossible to reconcile the two in our finite minds.

Sheesh...that ended up to be a much longer post than I expected. Sorry if it felt like a sermon.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The current issue of Newsweek does a good job showing where Gibson deviates from the Bible, accounts from the gospels and historic records in order to show the Jews in a much more negative light than is warranted.

Passions is no more an accurate picture of the crucifixion than Bowling for Columbine is a documentary.

Gibson's dad left the Catholic church over Vatican II, a seemingly harmless edict that absolved Jews of guilt. Given that Christianity stems from Judaism and the temple that played a major role in Christ's death was just one sect of many, the edict makes a lot of sense. Yet Hutton Gibson claimed Vatican II was part of a Jewish plot to take over the Catholic church. He also claims the Holocaust never happened.

So, Mel was raised in a fairly anti-semitic environment. It happens, and shouldn't be condemnation on its own.

But 12 years ago, Mel spent a lot of his money to create the same Vatican II-based church in California. There are only about 600 of these churches in the world. And he spent $25 million of his own money to create Passions, which, strangely enough, is as biblically accurate as possible with exception to the role the Jews played in these events.

Coincidence? Raised in anti-semitic household, spent a fortune on arguably anti-semitic pursuits? I think there's significant reason to believe Mel Gibson has dedicated a good part of his life to hatred of Jews.

I hope people of faith understand this, and take Passions with more than one grain of salt.

I haven't read that issue of Newsweek, but I'd be curious to see it. I'm not a New Testament scholar, but I'm fairly well-versed on the narrative of the crucifixion in the Gospels. I didn't sit down and go through line-by-line after watching the movie, but I certainly didn't see any glaring things left out or overly emphasized.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

The result is that you have the Pope glossing over the hard passages--the ones that clearly from a human perspective lay the responsiblity at the feet of the Jewish leaders.

I undestand that... but there's a difference in laying blame at a select group of Jewish people and laying blame at the entire religion. And IMO that is a huge difference...

PS - Just to give some perspective on where I'm coming from on my posts. I was raised in a Catholic family, both parents are Catholic, and went to church every Sunday growing up. Over time (the whole 19 years of my life ), for many reasons I've come to the conclusion that IMO there is no God. While I completly respect those who are religious, that part of life isn't for me. When I talk about these type of religions I do my best to respect the other side... so if anything I say is taken the wrong way, it is not meant to.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

I undestand that... but there's a difference in laying blame at a select group of Jewish people and laying blame at the entire religion. And IMO that is a huge difference...

Well, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the most problematic passage--and the one that I've heard may be deleted from the movie, is Matthew 27:24-25:

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

The version I saw tones this down a bit, actually. Rather than having many people in the crowd yell it out, one of the religious leaders stands alone and yells it out. (I think Caiaphas, the high priest, is the one who yells it.)

Jim, I skimmed the Newsweek article, and I have to respectfully disagree with your take on it. It looks like that article is trying to disrepute the reliability of the Gospel narratives themselves, rather than say that the movie differs from the Gospels. As I mentioned above, the most difficult New Testament passage regarding whatever responsibility Jews have for Jesus' death is toned down in the movie, and from what I've heard may even be deleted from the final cut.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the most problematic passage--and the one that I've heard may be deleted from the movie, is Matthew 27:24-25:

But again that quote goes back to what I was saying about only a select number of Jews being responsible. Though I'm no biblical expert, and certainly no historian I really doubt that every Jewish person in existince back then was in that crowd.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with certain religions (segments of Christianity) is their strict interpretation of the bible, that allows no time for seeing things in the context and historical time that the things were written... that and the fact that the bible (which btw I still see the value in parts of it), was written by man.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I haven't read that issue of Newsweek, but I'd be curious to see it.

The article is online

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The article is online

Yeah. That's where I looked at it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

But again that quote goes back to what I was saying about only a select number of Jews being responsible. Though I'm no biblical expert, and certainly no historian I really doubt that every Jewish person in existince back then was in that crowd.

Well, of course not, but it is likely that a fairly large portion of the Jews in Jerusalem were there, and keep in mind that it was the time of the Passover. Saying "his blood be on us and on our children" is then pretty significant.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with certain religions (segments of Christianity) is their strict interpretation of the bible, that allows no time for seeing things in the context and historical time that the things were written... that and the fact that the bible (which btw I still see the value in parts of it), was written by man.

I understand and respect your right to have that opinion. I just wish others would understand and respect my right to have the opinion that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, of course not, but it is likely that a fairly large portion of the Jews in Jerusalem were there, and keep in mind that it was the time of the Passover. Saying "his blood be on us and on our children" is then pretty significant.

Yes, but while significant it's far from the whole religion being responsible.

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I understand and respect your right to have that opinion. I just wish others would understand and respect my right to have the opinion that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.

You don't have to wish from me, because I deeply respect yours and others right to believe what you want. Opinions will differ, but, hey thats life.

[Solecismic]

I did more than skim the Newsweek article, and the author most certainly does not dismiss the Gospels as biased.

The crux of the article is that Gibson had no justification for portraying Pilate as weak and submissive. Gibson created many scenes outside of the Bible and the Gospels in order to support this portrayal, which essentially calls Luke a liar, as well as historians from that period.

While I disagree with censorship of any kind, this film is dangerous, and should not be portrayed as an absolutely true account of these events, from anyone's perspective other than those who split from the Catholic church on account of Vatican II.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It looks like that article is trying to disrepute the reliability of the Gospel narratives themselves

You did not read far enough Ben. He begins the article by pointing out that the gospels do deviate from historical facts at times. But he does point out numerous deviations between the gospels and the film.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You did not read far enough Ben. He begins the article by pointing out that the gospels do deviate from historical facts at times. But he does point out numerous deviations between the gospels and the film.

Alrighty...guess I need that entire thing... BRB.

[Samdari]

I will agree that the author does put far more emphasis on how the film deviates from history than from the gospels. There are a few examples though.

[Ben E Lou]

Long article, so I’ve decided to read and comment as I go…

>>

As moving as many moments in the film are, though, two NEWSWEEK screenings of a rough cut of the movie raise important historical issues about how Gibson chose to portray the Jewish people and the Romans. To take the film's account of the Passion literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence.

Again, this is hard to get around without ignoring what the Gospels say about Pilate. I already quoted the Matthew passage. Here are the others:

Mark 15:9--“Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him.”

Mark 15:12-15—“What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them. “Crucify him!” the shouted. “Why?” What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” Wanting to satisfy the crow, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Luke’s passage is long, but here are a few highlights….

Luke 23:4—“Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man.’”

Then Pilate side-steps the issue by sending him to Herod, who ends up sending him back to Pilate. Upon his return…

Luke 23:13-15—“Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

Then there is the Barabbas stuff, with the crowd demanding “Crucify him!” After three times of Pilate protesting…

Luke 23:23--“But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand.”

> >

John records it similarly;

John 18:38—“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

Further, in chapter 19 in verses 1-16, we find a very similar dialog.

> >

I’ll keep reading the article, but this is just one example of what I meant. In order to justify the paragraph above from the article, you have to discount a harmonious account in all four gospels. If the movie claims to be based on the whole of the gospels, how else COULD it have handled these passages apart from the way the article describes?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I did more than skim the Newsweek article, and the author most certainly does not dismiss the Gospels as biased.

The crux of the article is that Gibson had no justification for portraying Pilate as weak and submissive. Gibson created many scenes outside of the Bible and the Gospels in order to support this portrayal, which essentially calls Luke a liar, as well as historians from that period.

While I disagree with censorship of any kind, this film is dangerous, and should not be portrayed as an absolutely true account of these events, from anyone's perspective other than those who split from the Catholic church on account of Vatican II.

"But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance."

That seems to me as not "dismissing" but certaintly portraying, the Gospels as biased.

I found it ironic that the author would seemingly criticize the Gospels that way when he was clearly writing a piece with particular points to make and points of view to advance.

I do agree that the portrayal of Pilate as submissive and easily manipulated by the Temple is the author's biggest problem with the movie - and is also highly likely to be inaccurate. That is just not how the Romans ruled what they conquered.

[QuikSand]

My surface response to the Newsweek article is largely the same as that of Solecismic... but I don't claim a lot of background knowledge of the issue going in. I do have one general observation about the article, though. I, for one, find it difficult to accept when anyone says "no, this is what really happened" in cases like these -- I really think that the best we have is things like "this is what our translation of the bible actually says," or "this is what biblical historians largely agree." But I did find that many of Jon Meacham's conclusions in the article (which was indeed very critical of Gibson's film) were simply stated boldly... and I 'm sure that there are those who would dispute any number of ths things he asserts as fact.

I don't know what to think aboug Gibson and pure anti-Semitism... but I do know that his denials of same don't sway me much at all. He's an experienced filmmaker, he fully understands the use of proxy and symbolism in that medium. If he decides to emphasize bloodthirsty Jews and reluctant Romans in the picture, he knows full well the impression that he will leave. To then backtrack and say that the film "blames all of humanity" (paraphrasing there) is a pretty obvious denial of his artistic decision-making.

[Ben E Lou]

So why was the Gospel story—the story Gibson has drawn on—told in a way that makes "the Jews" look worse than the Romans? The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades af-ter Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion—understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism—attractive to as broad an audience as possible.

Another example of what I meant...

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I wonder how long til the ACLU claims this film is Anti-Semitic

Pick on the ACLU when it's merited, fine. They'll be on Gibson's side here... right where I properly infer that you'll be. The ACLU fights for individual's rights to civil liberties, including the right of unfettered expression.

If you want to gripe about someone objecting to the film, you'll have to go and pick on the ADL or another organization of that sort. Have at it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Another example of what I meant...

Are you arguing that this statement is demonatrsbly false?
Or that you believe it to be false?
Or that this is a matter of opinion, being presented as fact?

Honest question... I really don't know what you mean here, other than that you are singling this statement from the Meacham piece for some reason.

[Ben E Lou]

In an ensuing scene, Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." When word of the trouble reaches Pilate, he is told, "There is trouble within the walls. Caiaphas had some prophet arrested." It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogue—which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situation—are not found in the Gospels.

Agreed. It IS, however, a movie. There is some additional dialog throughout the movie not found in the Gospels. However, I don't recall seeing anything that wasn't believable in the context of the Gospels. That the Temple leaders would try to smooth things over with the Roman soldiers fits the situation.

[JPhillips]

I find it fascinating that Gibson believes that protestants are following the wrong version of Christianity, even including his Episcopalian wife, but is spending a great deal of time marketing this movie to evangelicals.