I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not in a position to comment. However, I remain "on the fence" about this, sympathetic to both sides. I think Jewish concerns about the film are legitimate, particularly about parts of the original script which from what I understand have since been excised ("His blood be upon us and upon our children", for example, while scripturally valid, gave rise to the erroneous interpretation of collective guilt upon the Jewish people and hence a cause of concern in modern-day 'Passion Plays'). At the same time, there are definitely critics who are motivated by anti-Catholic bias, especially in the secular media.
As Bill Cork has stressed, the Passion illustrates the need for mutual dialogue between Christians and Jews -- I thought the reviews of the film by Dennis Prager and Michael Novak were especially helpful, both able to compliment the film and offer good criticism.
Regarding Gibson himself -- I love his movies, and I'm anxious to see 'The Passion', but as to the man himself I'm hardly enthusiastic. I share Lane Core's skepticism regarding his "Catholic" faith, if the numerous reports of his opinions about the Holy Father are true. (Schism is schism, any way you cut it -- see my post Mel Gibson & Spiritus Christi).
Since my name has been thrown in here , I'll throw in my comments. It has hardly been "acquitted" of concerns over antisemitism. The vast majority of Jews who have seen it share the concerns of the ADL, as do many Catholics who have not chosen to go public. Unfortunately, you've only heard from the ADL and Mel's friends and those who rave about the movie without discussing objectively scenes in it that are problematic.
I've been following the controversy for some time, read the Scholars' Report, spoke with many of the people who saw it in Houston, and got the chance to see it myself in Denver recently.
There are many positive things to say about the movie--but this cannot obscure the fact that there are problems.
I raised the issues on my blog in the form of some questions (based on the content of the movie): (cont'd)
Do the Gospels say anything about Jesus being beaten mercilessly by Jews before he gets to the high priest? Do the Gospels have him thrown over a bridge, dangling from chains? Do the Gospels have him beaten to a bloody pulp when Caiaphas first lays eyes on him? Do the Gospels have the entire court, priests, guards, and onlookers, pummel Jesus and spit on him in an uncontrolled melee (with Peter in the same room)? Do the Gospels have Pilate say in disgust, "Do you always punish your prisoners before they're judged?" Do the Gospels say the procession to Calvary was led by priests on donkeys, and that they were the folks in charge on Calvary? Do the Gospels present an entirely unsympathetic crowd along the via dolorosa? Do the Gospels present more sympathetic Romans than Jews?
Does the addition of stock characters like Veronica and a reluctant Simon change the overall tone? Do the Gospels present the Romans as protecting Jesus from the crowd? Does it make a difference if the film omits the scene where Jesus speaks to the weeping women of Jerusalem?
Do the Gospels present God as vengeful? Does God send a crow to pluck out the eyes of the bad thief after he mocks Jesus? Does God send an earthquake to rip a chasm in the floor of the temple in a moment of grief mixed with anger?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
