NT Gateway Weblog

Yesterday's Guardian has a piece on The Passion of the Christ ahead of its UK release next week:

Passion players
Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ finally hits our screens next week. If you want to worship, go to church, not the movies, says David Mamet - while three clerics reveal their reactions to the film

Mamet's piece is a bit too clever for my liking and ends up getting so involved that it says little about the film. You can tell that he is pleased with his line about "communion with the divine" being "better celebrated with the traditional bread and wine than with popcorn and Coca-Cola".

The three clerics mentioned in the subtitle are Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Dr Graham Kings, vicar and Father Kit Cunningham. One hated it, one loved it, one had mixed feelings. I am a bit troubled about a comment made by Neuberger:

There is no doubt that the Jews are presented in an overwhelmingly negative way. Caiaphas, the high priest, is a pompous ass. He - and the other priests - are depicted as fat and overdressed, in contrast with the thin and simply attired Jesus and his followers. The crowd of Jews is given Jesus back after the obscenely vicious scene of the scourging - and it is then that "the Jews" bay for Jesus's blood. They ask for him to be crucified - Pilate, who gave in to the Jews before, unwillingly, gives in again to satisfy their blood lust. This is a highly selective and dangerous reading of the Gospels.

Neuberger is right about the overwhelmingly negative depiction of Caiaphas but her use of "the Jews" here in quotation marks strikes me as quite inappropriate. Now it is possible that I missed it, but I did not notice any group in the film specifically characterised as "the Jews" in this way, yet Neuberger makes this into a quotation. Indeed, as I have pointed out before, the only character I remember being specifically characterised as "Jew" was Simon of Cyrene, undoubtedly the most sympathetic character in the film after Jesus and the Marys. I do think that Gibson could have taken more care to avoid elements that have led to the anti-Semitism charge, e.g. by getting some more historical consultants on board, but there is no way that one can have a serious discussion if one is importing elements into the film that are not there (again, subject to correction if I have remembered wrongly).

---

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for pointing out this excellent site:

Livius - Articles on Ancient History
By Jona Lendering

This is a series of clear, illustrated, hyperlinked articles on the ancient world. Includes massive section on Ancient Judaea including articles on Jewish Wars, Messiah and more. I have added a link on my Ancient World page.

---

Christian History has a piece on the the medieval Passion plays and how an understanding of them informs one's appreciation of The Passion of the Christ:

The Ageless Drama of the Passion
Watching Gibson's film, we are transported 600 years back in time to a medieval art form.
By Jennifer Trafton

---

Thanks to Gail Dawson for this one from the Jerusalem Post, which I am noting a little belatedly -- it's a week old -- butr I didn't want it to pass without drawing attention to it because interesting:

Essay: Who killed Jesus? Boring
By HILLEL HALKIN

There is something absurd in the Jewish eagerness, manifested once again in the clamor surrounding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, to prove that "we" didn't kill Jesus. Honestly, it wasn't us, it was the Romans! We simply turned him in. This kind of plea-bargaining is not only demeaning and historically questionable, it is also unreflectingly accepting of the premise of traditional Christian theology that it really matters who killed Jesus because there is a collective responsibility for his death that damns the people of its perpetrators forever . . . . .

. . . . . Abba! I can read that a hundred times and still get a chill down my spine. The Aramaic word handed down to the authors of the Gospels as that used by Jesus to pray to his Father in heaven still means "father" in the colloquial Hebrew we speak every day in Israel. There is an intimacy and a tenderness in that colloquialism, uttered in prayer by no known rabbi of Jesus's time, that only a Hebrew speaker can savor.

I suppose this is merely to make what has become by now - though for thousands of years it was not - a commonplace observation: that the story of Jesus is a Jewish story, set in a Jewish world with Jewish characters and Jewish themes and Jewish preoccupations. Pontius Pilate is the only non-Jew in it. Its final chapters are not about how the "son of God" was killed by the Jewish people. They are about how some Jews helped to kill another Jew who had Jewish disciples and Jewish loyalties and Jewish thoughts and a Jewish message meant for Jews. The fact that by the time the Gospel stories were written, the message in question, or rather, a garbled version of it, was being addressed mainly to non-Jews does not obscure this . . . . .

. . . . . What's to be proud of is Jesus himself. Only Judaism could have produced such an extraordinary character.

---

Thanks to David Mackinder for this link:

Passion Play
Monday 05 of April, 2004 at 6.45pm - A special evening to discuss the significance of Mel's film, hosted by Jason Gardner

Cost: £6 at the door. Starting at 6.45pm for 7.00pm, doors open from 6.30pm. To book please contact Nicola on 020 7399 9555 or email mail@licc.org.uk.

Held at The London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, St Peter's, Vere Street, London, W1G 0DQ

Mel Gibson's stirring re-creation of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life has ignited much discussion amongst film critics and theologians alike, but does The Passion of the Christ present a flawed or fair account of the nature and life of Jesus? What does the way in which the media and the Church have handled the film's success tell us about the future of Christ's image in the public eye? And can we gain from Gibson's focus on the crucifixion an understanding of the work of the Cross that speaks to today's world?

Four panellists with distinctive perspectives will be reflecting on these and other issues raised by the film before inviting questions from the floor. Dr John McDade, Jesuit Priest and Principal of Heythrop College will be discussing the particularly Catholic aspects of the film's theology; Nev Pierce, film critic for the BBC will look at how the UK and US media differed in their response to Mel Gibson and his film; Anna Robbins, lecturer in Theology and Contemporary Culture at the London School of Theology, will explore whether the Church's various strategies for using the film is likely to help or hinder Christian engagement with the world at large. Baptist Minister Dr Steve Nolan, whose PHD examined film theory and liturgy, will compare Gibson's 'incarnation' of the Christ to Jesus' previous outings on celluloid. Chairing the event will be LICC Youth Culture researcher Jason Gardner.

The Passion of the Christ opens on general release Friday 26th of March. Use the Cinema Search at www.bbc.co.uk/films to find out where it's on at a cinema near you during or after the release week.

LICC's Director, Mark Greene, reflects on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ.
Click here to read his review.

---

To coincide with the UK release of The Passion of the Christ, the reJesus web site has set up some materials:

Expressions: The Passion Movie

This will not be of a lot of interest to academics; its primary purpose is as a guide for those who are interested in the film or who have seen the film but who do not know a lot about the New Testament and Christianity.

---

Although the official UK release of The Passion of the Christ is listed for March 26 (Friday), a quick glance around local cinemas confirms that the release date is actually March 24 (Wednesday). There is a new UK and Ireland web site for the film here:

The Passion of the Christ -- A Mel Gibson Film -- Official UK and Ireland Movie web site

---

On Germany's reaction to the film ahead of its release there later this week, this BBC News story (thanks to Helenann Hartley and Bible and Interpretation for the link):

Germany wary of Passion reaction
German Jewish leaders and church officials have warned that The Passion of the Christ may stir up anti-Semitism when it opens in the country.

. . . . . "The anti-Semites will only have their views on Jews confirmed," said Salomon Korn, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

German Protestant leader Wolfgang Huber said the film did not put Christ's suffering into proper perspective . . . .

. . . . German Catholic leaders called the film problematic, and the German Bishops' Conference said: "We urgently warn against using the suffering of Jesus as an instrument for anti-Semitism."

Salomon Korn said the film was a "sado-masochist orgy of violence" laden with "kitsch", while Wolfgang Huber described the film's violence as "intolerable".

Thanks to David Mackinder for this one in the New Republic Online:

STANLEY KAUFFMANN ON FILMS
Gibson's Offering

Meanwhile the money keeps rolling in, and the film has not even been released yet in many countries. This also linked on Bible and Interpretation; it is an article from the Washington Post:

Mel's New Testament Profits
Gibson Could Earn $500 Million From His Leap of Faith
By Anne Thompson

Because he provided the money behind the movie himself, Gibson stands to make several hundred million dollars. After just 21/2 weeks, "The Passion" has already earned a spot among the top 25 all-time domestic blockbusters, with $267.7 million through Monday, and beat "My Big Fat Greek Wedding's" record as the most successful independent release ever. This weekend, the gory religious epic will likely pass "The Matrix Reloaded's" $281 million gross to become the best-grossing R-rated movie of all time.

The piece ends by speculating on what Gibson will do with his millions and notes the possibility that he will make a film on the Maccabees, also reported elsewhere on the web and noted by Jim Davila in Paleojudaica.

And in the Guardian Unlimited, this extraordinary story:

Mel's Passion too much for Georgia couple

The theological implications of The Passion of the Christ proved too much for one God-fearing American couple last weekend when what began as a discussion on the content of Mel Gibson's movie ended with Georgia natives Sean and Melissa Davidson spending a night in police cells, each charged with battery.

---

Ben Witherington III's response has now been added in Round 5 of the Scholarly Smackdown on The Passion of the Christ:

Round 5: Ben Witherington III

It remains interesting because Witherington is obviously no great fan of the film, so it is not as if we have Crossan anti- the film and Witherington pro. Their divisions are tending to relate more to why they have problems with it, Crossan largely because of its theology, its alleged anti-Semitism and its violence, Witherington because of its relative lack of fidelity to Scripture. Witherington agrees with Crossan's comments on the depiction of Pilate in the film and makes the useful point that without anything like Luke 13.1 there is no context for the portrayal. He prefers Rod Steiger's portrayal in Jesus of Nazareth.

Unfortunately, Witherington does not engage with Crossan's interesting material about the origins of the Passion Narrative during the reign of Herod Agrippa and makes one of those all-too-easy scholarly put-downs (smackdowns?!), that it is "an undue amount of pure speculation without historical foundation". I don't think that Crossan's remarks can be so lightly thrown aside. They are based on Gerd Theissen's excellent study of the Passion Narrative and represent, as far as I can see, something of a shift in Crossan's own view, which had previously seen very little of the Passion narrative as having an historical origin. They deserve more attention than that, especially if one of the points of the exchange is to demonstrate how the process of academic dialogue should take place. One of the things I like to try to discourage students to do is to use the throw-away one-liner as a substitute for engaging with one's critics.

Witherington concludes by commenting on the familiar theme of the scourging of Jesus:

So let me be plain—I think there are some real and troubling historical distortions in this movie. The one that bothers me perhaps the most is that each Gospel account devotes exactly one verse to the flagellation of Jesus; they do not emphasize it or highlight the fact. It's almost mentioned in passing. The enormous amplification of this to an unbearable extent in the movie is way beyond what poetic license should allow. For me, this is especially egregious since it is not the flagellation that produces the atonement for sins, but rather the death of Christ on the cross. In the movie, this somehow manages to be less gruesome than the flagellation. It seems an odd strategy to amplify the violence beyond biblical proportions in order to exalt the Prince of Peace!

Similar comments have been made in the reviews. All I can say of my experience of the film is that I did not find the crucifixion any less gruesome than the scourging scene and the comment puzzles me. I found the crucifixion itself far and away the most emotional part of the film. I also do not feel completely at ease with the language about what "produces the atonement for sins". Witherington is right that the Gospel writers place no emphasis on the scourging, though I can't help wondering whether the lack of detail is because readers are expected to have some idea of what this would have meant, in a culture in which fear of persecution was a reality.

Finally, Witherington and / or Beliefnet need to spell-check these messages before uploading. (I know, I can talk, but bear in mind that a daily blog takes much more writing time than a weekly email and it's just me -- no editor).

---

On the Textweek weblog, Jenee Woodard announces that she has put together the following very useful compendium of links:

"The Passion of the Christ" Mel Gibson Movie - Articles, Study Guides, & Opinions

I have added a link to this on my The Passion of the Christ page.

---

Oxford University Press have just released this new book:

Paul - His Story
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archéologique Francaise, Jerusalem

Price: £16.99 (Hardback)
0-19-926653-0
Publication date: 18 March 2004
276 pages, 2 maps, 216mm x 138mm

Description

An imaginative, engaging, and short biography of Saint Paul. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's disciplined imagination, nourished by a lifetime of research, shapes numerous textual, historical, and archaeological details into a colourful and enjoyable story of which Paul is the flawed but undefeated hero. Paul's travels and mission are put into a plausible biographical context. New insights into his personality are shown to provide a key to understanding his theological ideas. As a result, the Apostle comes to life as a complex, intensely human individual.

Readership: Ideal for anyone who wants a short and enjoyable account of Paul's life, psychology, travels, mission, and theological ideas. People interested in the development of Christianity, the early Church, or the historical basis of the Bible. Students in religion, theology, biblical studies, and ancient history.

Contents/contributors
1 The Early Years
2 Conversion and its Consequences
3 Apprenticeship in Antioch
4 A Journey into Europe
5 South to Achaia
6 Antioch and Jerusalem
7 The First Year in Ephesus
8 The Second Year in Ephesus
9 Conversations with Corinth
10 Macedonia and Illyricum
11 Farewell to the East
12 The Final Years

---

Thanks to David Mackinder for this one:

Whose Passion? Media, Faith & Controversy
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
5:00 pm
Taper Hall Room 101

Join Diane Winston, USC Annenberg’s Knight Chair in Media and Religion for a provocative discussion with a panel of experts to discuss Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion of the Christ. Joining Prof. Winston for the discussion is Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times film critic and USC Annenberg adjunct professor; Benedict Fitzgerald, co-screenwriter of The Passion of the Christ, Richard Fox, USC history professor and author of Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession, Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of Act One, Inc., and William Fulco, NEH Chair in Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Loyola Marymount University who served as the on-set filming consultant for the film . . . . . .

Watch the video

It's over an hour long and is fascinating viewing. The first main speaker is Benedict Fitzgerald, co-screen-writer who uses up most of his time reading out a review and does not use his time as well as one might have hoped. Next up is Richard Wightman Fox, author of Jesus in America, who makes lots of interesting points, e.g. he notes that the mirror of the anti-Semitism debate happened with Cecil B. de Mille's The King of Kings. That would certainly be something worth hearing more about. He talks a little about the fact that American evangelicals have, on the whole, loved this very Catholic film and speculates on the reasons. One of the reasons he offers is that the film gives evangelicals the opportunity to lay to rest once for all the memory of The Last Temptation of Christ and, to a lesser extent, Jesus Christ Superstar. In The Passion of the Christ there is no sexual fantasy about Mary Magdalene and no close friendship with Judas. A very interesting point.

The next contributor is Barbara Nicolosi who is also well worth hearing. She relates a story about a viewing she attended with Mel Gibson and some Church leaders. Afterwards one evangelical pastor pressed Gibson on the scene of Satan with the ugly baby. Where was this in the Bible? he wanted to know. Gibson replies that it's in there somewhere. Pressed further on what it's doing in the film, Gibson replies that he "Thought it was really creepy". Still dissatisfied, the pastor presses Gibson further: What was the source of this incident? Gibson replies, "I guess I just pulled it out of my ass". Nicolosi uses this to reflect on the way that an artist works. This is art, not documentary, and the interpretation of the events is indistinguishable from the narration of those events. (I am paraphrasing, of course, and not transcribing.)

William J. Fulco, S. J. is up next and his contribution is really engaging -- it's the first time I have seen him in action. Would that we could hear more of his defence of the film against its critics. He says that he is taken aback by many of the reviews of the film, especially those from the New York Times and the LA Times, which seem to miss the spiritual dimension to the film. He says that he has seen the film forty times because of having to watch the languages through the editing process and he reveals that he has cried every one of those forty times. He reflects on the way that people react to this film -- they seem either to love it or hate it. He thinks that this is because it is so "in your face". It is difficult to be neutral about it. He also relays an interesting story about his pushing Mel Gibson concerning the resurrection. He suggests to Gibson that the ending is problematic -- they need more depiction of the resurrection. At first Gibson is interested and wants to talk about it some more. The next time he sees him, he asks what they are going to do about the problem with the ending, but Gibson replies "What problem?" and Fulco realises that he is just the translator.

Kenneth Turan from the LA Times is the final speaker before the questions and offers a profound contrast to the others. He actually comes across very Eeyore. He does not want to be there, he repeats over and over again that he found the film and the controversy surrounding it really depressing and he talks about the hate mail that he has received. He says that he has never seen a reaction like this to any other film since he has begun reviewing and he finds it very depressing.

In the Question and Answer session (starts about 52 minutes in), a questioner brings up the question of Catherine Emmerich's contribution to the screenplay, so frequently discussed in the pre-publicity and publicity surrounding the film. Fulco and Fitzgerald both answer. Fulco says that Gibson "was not influenced by her ideology or anti-Semitism" but was looking for ideas. If one used soley the Biblical text, one would have a five-minute movie. He agrees that Emmerich has anti-Semitic stuff, he describes it as "God awful", says that it has nothing to do with the movie and describes it as a "canard" to bring in her position. Fitzgerald (who spent two years writing the script with Gibson) then comes in with the striking claim that "She had practically no influence whatsoever on any of this." He says that "She was, in some respects, the supplier of a couple of ideas, but these were not anti-Semitic ideas; they were ideas about how to treat Claudia Proclea (sic), who was the wife of Pilate." He adds that there are other texts about this character too. (I must admit that I am ignorant of these. Note: the Beliefnet breakdown also references Mary of Agreda's "City of God".)

At the same point, Richard Wightman Fox draws an interesting contrast between the way that Gibson portrays the scourging and the way that it was done in From the Manger to the Cross (1912), in which the viewer's attention is directed to the Roman soldier doing the scourging who is eventually too tired himself to go on. Fox feels that there are artistic ways of showing the scourging without turning it on the viewer to hurt the viewer.

There is another question about Gibson's father, his attitude to Vatican II and so on, and it is acknowledged by Fulco and Fitzgerald that Gibson's father has crazy views.

On the discussion of anti-Semitism, Barbara Nicolosi submits that The Last Temptation of Christ is more anti-Semitic than this film, but Richard Fox counters by saying that Scorsese set the standard for how to depict Caiaphas responsibly -- he dug deep to make sure that he did not use any non-Biblical racial stereotype.

---

In the latest of the excellent series of reviews on The Passion of the Christ on Bible and Interpretation, Bruce Chilton offers the following:

Mel Gibson’s Passion Play
Mr. Gibson has fashioned a blunt instrument of propaganda, edged with artistry, whose visceral power gives it the potential to become his most lethal weapon of all.
By Bruce Chilton

I am beginning to think that I am the only NT scholar who actually liked this film! Happily I know that there are a few others of us because I've had one or two supportive comments in response to the blog. Chilton's review is written with some wit and features some useful insights, but ultimately it descends into unsavoury rhetoric. Several of his observations are unrecognisable to me. Consider this remark, for example,

In consideration of the weeping popcorn chompers around me, I did not laugh aloud. But reflective silence only confirmed my conviction that this is the funniest Jesus-movie since The Life of Brian.

I am amazed that anyone could find this film funny, even as a means of expressing real distaste for it in a negative review. The notion that Satan and the ugly baby look like Dr Evil and mini-me from Austin Powers I find difficult to take seriously.

As one begins the review, it looks like it's going to be a positive one. This remark about the opening scene in Gethsemane is, I think, exactly right:

Jesus’ psychic pain is at its height at this point. In fact, the film reaches is climax within three minutes or so; everything that follows is denouement. This is a very brave dramatic gamble and a success.

I found the Gethsemane scene so powerful that I felt that I was likely to find the entire film really engaging. It captures you right at the start. On the Gethsemane scene, Chilton also comments:

As he lies on the ground in his prayer to God in Gethsemane, Satan releases a snake. But once again on his feet, Jesus crushes the snake’s head and marches out to meet his tormenters. No, of course that scene is not in the Gospels; Satan and his snake are imported from medieval imagination. They represent a Christological reading of Genesis 3:15, tinged with the imagery of the Revelation. That is allowed in a passion play, as are all the scenes Mr. Gibson invents from legend and imagination.

Indeed -- and I would want to add that one does not even need to go back to the passion plays. All Jesus films, to varying degrees, work legend and imagination into their screenplays. Those that do it the least are Pasolini's Gospel According to St Matthew, Jesus (1979), Matthew (Visual Bible, 1996) and the recent Gospel of John (Visual Bible, 2003), but The Passion of the Christ is by no means the richest user of legend and imagination. I would say that King of Kings (1961), The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus of Nazareth (1977), The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), The Miracle Maker (1999) and Jesus (1999) all have far greater input from legend and imagination that Gibson's film.

On the imagery of Jesus stamping on the snake's head, I agree with Chilton that ultimately this is based in Genesis 3.15, but it should be added that the theme is developed in the New Testament and finds its most direct source in Luke 10.19, "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you."

But Chilton goes on:

And as in the case of any passion play, the artistry consists in what is invented, not in fidelity to the Gospels, and history is beside the point.

I think that this is too strong. There is plenty of artistry in the way that material from the Gospels is adapted by Gibson. Consider, for example, the use of flashbacks based on Gospel material. In Luke 22.61, the narrator casts the reader's mind back to the Last Supper at which Peter's denial had been prophesied, saying "The Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had told him, 'Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times.'" What Gibson does with this verse is to use flashback: Peter denies Jesus, Jesus looks at him and the viewer is then shown the prophecy at the Last Supper. There is artistry in the way that the film-maker uses this device to dramatise a Gospel text. I don't recall having seen flashback used in this scene in other Jesus films (though cf. two other recent films for the use of flashback, the recent Gospel of John, utilising black-and-white, and The Miracle Maker, moving between claymation for the main narrative and animation for flashback).

Chilton asks about the death of Judas:

These vivid images do tip into camp from time to time. Judas hangs himself by taking the rope off a rotting donkey, a rope big enough to pull a barge. He ties himself to a tree overhanging a cliff. The viewer is left wondering how he got up there: Did Satan levitate him?

In a way, the question is irrelevant -- the power of the scene is in the cut from the scene involving the pursuit and haunting by demonic children, the dead donkey and Satan, to Judas alone, hanging dead on the tree. If one must ask the question, surely Judas climbed the tree.

I would also like to comment on the following:

The burial, by the way, completely eliminates the role of Joseph of Arimathea that is pivotal in the Gospels: an opportunity to portray crucial sympathy by one of Jesus’ contemporaries in Judaism is squandered. In any case, his immaculate linen shroud trembles in the breeze, awaiting shipment to Turin. He stands, his face, butt, and punctured right hand in profile. He marches out of the tomb much as he marched out to his tormenters in Gethsemane but to the marshal beat of a drum.

The point about Joseph of Arimathea is an interesting one -- yes, this is an opportunity missed. On the other hand, I don't know that the burial shroud particularly evoked the Turin shroud. Indeed if Gibson had been influenced by the latter, would he not have had the nails driven through the wrists in the crucifixion scene? Perhaps Chilton is being sarcastic. On the marching out of the tomb, I am puzzled -- this was not in the version of the film I saw, unless I am not remembering it accurately. Can anyone shed any light?

Another passage of interest is on stoning:

She [Mary Magdalene] is nearly stoned by a ring of people with rocks, much as in the stoning scene in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian rather than by the method of being thrown from a cliff and crushed with a large rock, which both the New Testament and the Mishnah refer to.

A couple of comments here. First, one does not need to go to Life of Brian to see depictions of this kind of stoning; the films Life of Brian is parodying depict stoning this way; likewise The Last Temptation of Christ, which postdated Life of Brian, again depicts it this way. In other words, the mention of Life of Brian in this context is unnecessary. Was there anything else in this scene in The Passion of the Christ that evoked Life of Brian? [Footnote: not a rhetorical question. Last Temptation self-consciously pays homage to Life of Brian in its Sermon on the Mount scene that follows on from the stoning. It's possible that Gibson did something similar, but if he did, I didn't notice it.]

And my second comment on this. Chilton refers to "the method of being thrown from a cliff and crushed with a large rock" as occurring in the New Testament and the Mishnah. However, the NT evidence is much less clear than Chilton implies. Presumably he is referring to Luke 4.29, "And they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff". But this does not specifically describe this process as stoning and it is only one text among several. Other texts suggest that the standard filmic depiction is reasonable:

• John 8.59: Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
• John 10.31: The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

Further, Acts 7.58-59 also appears to depict stoning in the traditionally understood way. And surely the very story under discussion (John 8.1-11) imagines the protagonists with stones, or what could the line, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8.7, NASB), mean? In other words, there is no need to invoke Life of Brian here; standard filmic depictions based on New Testament evidence would be enough.

By the end of his review, I have the feeling that Chilton's rhetoric is running away with him and there is little sense of proportion:

By mixing together the genre of the passion play with the pretension of historical accuracy, Gibson has inadvertently made his passion play into pious vaudeville. Claims that this film reflects the Gospels or history are cynical. Critics who treat it as a historical work have confused their profession with self-promotion. Were this film directed by Mel Brooks, we would have something to watch with pleasure. But Mr. Gibson’s Passion is libelous farce, poor art, and an incentive for credulous viewers to confuse Christian faith with hatred.

While I remain sceptical about any claims of special historical accuracy for this film, I do not think that it is "cynical" to suggest that it reflects the Gospels. Many of its lines are straight from the Gospels and on the whole more of its script is derived from the New Testament than is the case with several other Jesus films (cf. Darrell Bock's excellent guide). I would personally regard associating the film with Austin Powers, Monty Python and Mel Brooks as more peculiar than associating it with the New Testament. Nor is the film, for all its flaws, "poor art", as Chilton appears to acknowledge earlier in the review. And I find the assertion about "credulous viewers" confusing "Christian faith with hatred" a difficult one to assess in the light of the film's major, repeated theme through the crucifixion narrative of love of one another, love of enemies, prayer for persecutors and forgiveness of sin. For many viewers it is this theme of overwhelming love in the face of such appalling hatred and wickedness that makes the film so powerful. I do not think that viewers who feel this way are credulous, nor that there is any confusion of the Christian faith with hatred. Quite the contrary.

---

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for this link. The University of California Press has made available the complete text of the following:

David Daube, Appeasement or Resistance and Other Essays on New Testament Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)

The on-line edition is broken up into the four separate essays:

• The Old Testament in the New: A Jewish Perspective


• Temple Tax


• The Burdened Convert


• Appeasing or Resisting the Oppressor

---

On Biblical Studies Resources, Jim West notes this article in WXII12.com:

Survey: 'The Passion' May Be Reducing Anti-Semitism

A new poll suggests fears that "The Passion of the Christ" would trigger anti-Semitism were unwarranted.

A nationwide survey conducted for the Institute for Jewish and Community Research finds that 83 percent of Americans familiar with the film say it's made them neither more nor less likely to blame today's Jews for Jesus' crucifixion.

Nine percent said Mel Gibson's film actually has made them less likely to blame today's Jews, while less than 2 percent said they're more likely to fault modern Jews or Jewish institutions.

The Institute's president, Gary Tobin, added that discussion of the issue has probably been good for Christian-Jewish relations.

The site also has a little repository of clips from the film:

Movie Clips, Interview Clips, Slide Show

So if you haven't seen it yet and want to whet your appetite, have a look at these five clips. The same article, as well as the clips, is available at Click2Houston.com, with thanks to Jeff Peterson for the link.

Jim also links to an article in a German publication, DW-World.de Deutsche Welle, "The Passion" stirs heated debate in Germany. But I don't seem to be able to access this -- error message. I've tried accessing the German language version without success.

---

The trailer for The Passion of the Christ has arrived in UK cinemas -- I saw it yesterday.

Thanks to Helenann Hartley for this link from BBC News:

Jim Caviezel's risky sacrifice
Catholic actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ, was blessed by the Pope at the Vatican on Monday.

Essentially this is an article about Caviezel's career to date. There's another similar article here:

Passion actor Caviezel meets Pope

And thanks to Mark Elliott at Bible and Interpretation for this one (also noted by Jim Davila in Paleojudaica):

Mel's Jesus: A "Real Man" or Just a Toon?
Paul V. M. Flesher
If you read the gospel accounts of the Passion before you view the film, it becomes immediately clear that The Passion does not consistently adhere to the biblical stories

It is an interesting and different take on the film, stressing Caviezel's portrayal of a "macho" Jesus, heroically standing up to the punishment meted out to him. The "toon" of the title relates to the problem that Jesus continues to be able to get up, to survive and carry on after the repeated torture, just like the toons of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and the like. It is something that one wonders when seeing the film -- how could a man survive that kind of scourging? But a couple of thoughts occur to me in defence of the film. First, Jesus ben Ananias is said to have been "whipped till his bones were laid bare" in Josephus' War 6.5.3 and yet he apparently survives. Further, the Gospels depict Jesus' death on the cross as relatively quick -- six hours in the Synoptics and three hours in John; and in the latter he does not need to have his legs broken unlike the other men. It is entirely possible that if these stories originate in reasonably accurate memories, Jesus' scourging was severe and his death on the cross consequently quicker.

Bible and Interpretation have set aside a page for these academic articles on The Passion of the Christ here:

Essays From Bible and Interpretation on the Passion.

More are promised; it will be interesting to see who else is lined up.

---

Stephen Shields at Faithmaps.org has produced an excellent collection of links to materials on The Passion of the Christ:

Links and Articles related to "The Passion of the Christ"
These resources are intended to aid in understanding the movie, the Scriptural and other sources informing it, and in evaluating its content historically.

I've added the link to my page on The Passion of the Christ.

---

I was sorry to read on RogueClassicism of the death of Keith Hopkins. New York Times obituary:

Keith Hopkins, 69, Historian With an Unusual Approach, Is Dead
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON

See also The Guardian. I never met Hopkins but almost did once -- he was a successful "media don" and was well liked by documentary makers who found his approach lively, engaging and televisual. So he appeared on New Testament related documentaries as well as those on the ancient world more broadly; I took part in an ITV series called The Apostles and the episode on Matthew featured Hopkins prominently as well as Graham Stanton.

---

The March issue of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament is now available. On-line access to the full text articles is for subscription / institutional subscriptions only:

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Vol. 26 No. 3 (March 2004)

Matthew and the Gentiles
Warren Carter

Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction: Jesus’ Defense Strategies in Mark’s Trial and Execution Scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-39)
William Sanger Campbell

Brothers in Brackets?
Reidar Aasgaard

Poverty in Pauline Studies
Steven J. Friesen

Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen
John Barclay

Constructing Poverty Scales for Graeco-Roman Society
Peter Oakes

Book Reviews

---

Apparently The Last Temptation of Christ (dir. Martin Scorsese, 1988) is only this week getting its release in Mexico, a week ahead of the release there of The Passion of the Christ, according to this Reuters story on Yahoo! News:

Christ Film Reaches Mexico 16 Years Later
By Elizabeth Fullerton

Heavily Catholic Mexico outlawed director Scorsese's film "The Last Temptation of Christ" for portraying a weak-willed Jesus Christ tempted to have sex with Mary Magdalene.

It will finally debut in cinemas here on Friday.

The film's distributor said this week it was launching "this work of art so the Mexican public can decide for itself and draw its own conclusions."

The film has been timed to open exactly one week before the March 19 Mexican premiere of Gibson's "The Passion"

Still more evidence of this interesting side effect of the popularity of The Passion of the Christ, that it is increasing interest in other Jesus films. Let's hope for a TV airing in the UK of some Jesus films over Easter. Perhaps even some of the rarities, The Day Christ Died or Son of Man?

---

T & T Clark International, the new imprint of Continuum that combines Sheffield Academic Press, T & T Clark and Trinity Press International, has now launched its own major new web site with up to date booklist, details on its editorial programme and so on:

T & T Clark International

The site will configure itself for you into U.S. / Canada or U.K. / Other. There are also some good offers in the Special Sales section.

---

And following on from the previous entry, I had a look to see if Warren Carter has a faculty page and he does, with a full publications list (though now a little out of date since the Pilate book is listed as forthcoming). It's on Scholars: C and here is the link:

Warren Carter

---

On Paleojudaica, a link to this interesting piece by Warren Carter (Pherigo Professor of New Testament at St. Paul's School of Theology) in the Kansas City Star:

A place for Pontius Pilate
Roman governor was merely playing his political part
By WARREN CARTER

It seems that Carter has published a book on Pontius Pilate. This had escaped by attention until now:

Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003)

Over on the Liturgical Press web site, they are headlining with this book with the line, "Have you seen the movie, The Passion of the Christ? Wondering what Pontius Pilate was really like?" Here's their blurb:

Pontius Pilate examines the portraits of this Roman governor found in the Gospels. Unlike some discussions of Pilate, this one takes Pilate’s role as governor and representative of Roman imperial power seriously. It views Pilate predominantly as a strong, efficient, and astute governor, not as a weak and indecisive man, pressured into killing Jesus against Pilate’s convictions. The conclusion considers some of the ethical and theological issues the scenes involving Pilate raise for contemporary readers.

Chapters are “Would the Real Pilate Please Stand Up?” “Reading the Gospel Accounts of Pilate,” “Governors and the Roman Imperial System,” “Mark’s Pilate,” “Matthew’s Pilate,” “Luke’s Pilate,” and “John’s Pilate.”

And they also have an excerpt available from the preface and introduction to the book:

Excerpt from Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor

---

Thanks to Helenann Hartley for these links from BBC News:

Vatican sermon criticises Passion

A Vatican sermon has made a veiled criticism of Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ.

Father Raniero Cantalamessa said if the film spread the belief that all Jews were responsible for Christ's death, it should be criticised.

But he said in a Lent sermon that "if it restricts itself to showing an influential group of Jews" were to blame, it could not be criticised.

MP slates Gibson's Christ movie

Labour MP Gerald Kaufman has attacked Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ as "damagingly anti-Semitic".

On ITV1's GMTV Sunday Programme, he slated the film's "gratuitous violence, ugliness, wallowing in blood and, it has to be said, crude anti-Semitism".

---

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for this new URL for Neotestamentica, now updated on the Journals page:

Neotestamentica

---

With thanks to Holger Szesnat for several of these, some updates to the NT Gateway Scholars pages:

• Scholars: D: new URL for Robert Derrenbacker; Jonathan Draper added.


• Scholars: F: Gordon Fee's web page has gone.


• Scholars: H: Stanley Harstine's web page gone (he has moved to Friends University but no sign of web page there).

---