VITAL SIGNS: CHRISTIANITY-Everything the Critics Said About Mel Gibson's The Passion Was Wrong

VITAL SIGNS: CHRISTIANITY

The Triumph of Tradition by Tom Piatak

"When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to." So predicted Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen in one of the opening salvos in the year-long campaign to kill Mel Gibson’s film masterpiece, The Passion of the Christ—a campaign that was, in equal measure, hysterical, disingenuous, ignorant, and unsuccessful. As of this writing, The Passion has grossed over $360 million in the United States (making it the seventh top-grossing domestic film in history) and over $200 million overseas. The result is not the "violence" Fredriksen predicted but numerous stories of people being moved to return to Christ and, in a few instances, even to confess to unsolved crimes.

Just about everything the critics said about Gibson’s film was wrong. Starting with Fredriksen, the critics assumed the pose of objective historian, lecturing us ad nauseam that all scholars believe that the Romans alone were responsible for the Crucifixion; that Pilate was such a brutal tyrant that what the Gospels wrote about him was certainly false; that no one in first-century Jerusalem spoke Latin. But Raymond Brown, the late doyen of liberal biblical scholars, wrote in his Death of the Messiah that, "When the Jewish, Christian, and pagan evidence is assembled, the involvement of Jews in the death of Jesus approaches certainty"; that Pilate "was not a ferociously cruel governor" and the Gospels’ "descriptions of Pilate with their variations are not inherently implausible"; and that Pilate’s cohorts included the Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum—troops who spoke Latin, not Greek.

We were also repeatedly warned that Passion plays regularly lead to antisemitic violence, even though these warnings were invariably devoid of evidence that any particular Passion play had, in fact, led to violence. The reaction to Gibson’s film strongly suggests that these warnings were at least misplaced, if not baseless. A poll taken by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research showed, in fact, that Gibson’s film was more likely to lessen belief in Jewish culpability for Jesus’ death than the reverse. Such a result is surprising only if one believes, as do Gibson’s critics, that the Gospels themselves are antisemitic.

The critics also scorned Gibson for focusing on the Passion, not on Christ’s teachings or His Resurrection. Lawrence Frizzell, one of the first academics to attack Gibson, wrote that "Emphasis on the Passion . . . does not convey any insight into the means whereby the Gospels show that the work of forgiveness is accomplished." So much for J.S. Bach’s Passions, Joseph Haydn’s Seven Last Words, Michelangelo’s Pietà—not to mention the countless Crucifixions painted by nearly every master from Giotto up to the 18th century, including such diverse artists as Rubens and Rembrandt, Velazquez and El Greco, Tintoretto and Titian, Delacroix and Poussin, and even Gauguin and Dali. So much, too, for St. Francis of Assisi. As Jaroslav Pelikan notes in Jesus Through the Centuries, the great focus of Francis’ devotion was the Passion, and Bonaventure wrote in his biography of Francis that "Christ hung upon his Cross, poor and naked and in great pain, and Francis wanted to be like him in everything." It is a shame that such simpletons as Bach and Saint Francis did not have Lawrence Frizzell to show them the way.

Complaints about the violence of Gibson’s film suggest that the critics were simply ignorant both of the Western artistic tradition and of centuries of piety focused on the Passion, both of which have emphasized the physical nature of Christ’s sacrifice. As Jonathan Chaves has written, Gibson’s Christ was less battered than Matthias Grünewald’s in his renowned Isenheim Altarpiece, and nothing in Gibson’s film matched the bitter grief shown by Saint Mary and Saint John as they contemplate the crucified Jesus in Grüne-wald’s painting. Nothing in Gibson’s film, either, compares to the malevolence expressed by the faces surrounding Christ in Hieronymus Bosch’s Christ Carrying the Cross and Christ Crowned With Thorns.

Unlike his critics, Gibson was aware of the Western artistic tradition. He has spoken of his debt to such artists as Caravaggio, Mantegna, Masaccio, and Piero della Francesca. The result of Gibson’s study of other depictions of the Crucifixion was a film that was profoundly visual and evocative of Western art. As Chaves wrote,

"The stations of the cross proceeded across the screen like a series of engravings or woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer or Martin Schongauer; or paintings by Duccio di Buoninsegna, Fra Angelico, Francisco de Zurbaran or Guido Reni; or wall paintings or icons on the iconostasis of any of the monastery churches at Mt. Athos."

The New York Times’ Daniel Wakin, writing on April 18, described Gilbert Fuentes, a visitor to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s exhibit on Byzantine art who was inspired both to return to his faith and to visit the exhibit because of Gibson’s film: "It really touched me, the way [H]e suffered. It makes me want to research more of it." Mr. Fuentes was particularly drawn to Venetian artist’s Michele Giambono’s The Man of Sorrows, painted around 1420-30, which he found, in a way, more powerful than the Gibson film: "You’re able to be one on one. You can stand here and meditate on it."

The tradition uniting Giambono and Gibson remains a fruitful one because it ultimately leads back to the Gospels. By contrast, the best that can be said for the tradition embraced by Gibson’s academic critics—the historical-critical approach to the Bible—is that not everyone who is exposed to it automatically loses his faith. It is a sterile tradition, inspiring no one, creating no art, leading nowhere.

Gibson’s film is also a vindication of orthodox Christianity. Though condemned by a handful of liberal churchmen, it was warmly embraced by believers of all denominations. Significantly, all of the criticism of Gibson’s film came from countries where Christianity is either on the defensive or actually dying. In the Third World, where the Faith is growing, no one condemned it. Instead, it was embraced by the entire episcopate of the Philippines and the leading churchmen of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa. Gibson’s depiction of Christ was thoroughly orthodox. As Kenneth Woodward wrote in the New York Times, Gibson’s Jesus

"doesn’t promote social causes. . . . He certainly doesn’t crusade against gender discrimination, as some feminists believe he did, nor does he teach that we all possess an inner divinity, as today’s nouveau Gnostics believe. One cannot imagine this Jesus joining a New Age sunrise Easter service overlooking the Pacific."

Those who prefer a New Age Jesus (or no Jesus at all) were shocked by Gibson’s film, which, for a moment, caused a welcome shift in our national discourse from endless chatter over such trivialities as Janet Jackson’s "wardrobe malfunction" to matters of real importance. It is hard to imagine a film about any other historical figure having such an impact. Whether one believes in Him or not, Jesus remains the central figure in history. And Gibson’s depiction of His last hours will continue to be watched long after all of Gibson’s critics are forgotten and their efforts to deconstruct the Gospels have come to naught.

Tom Piatak writes from Cleveland, Ohio.

.

MEL's -PASSION- was sparked by -WE WERE SOLDIERS-

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39081

.

Boston University’s Paula Fredriksen: augfred@bu.edu

bump

Great Article..

And interesting point, that I have heard people make before that was in this article. People bemoaning the fact that Gibson only portrayed the Passion and not the Gospels or teaching..

Hummm? I wonder, since the movie was called the Passion of Christ, why he chose to only portray the Passion..

I would not doubt that if Gibson made a movie called, The Teaching of the Messiah, there would be brilliant Theologians who would be banter around and complain that Gibson did not focus on the struggles of the Roman Church..

There is an old Russian Orthodox Saying about a Theologian that these people might want to embrace:

"A Theologian is someone who prays, and someone who prays is a theologian"

Thank you for sharing this story. I think that The Passion goes further than we will ever know. Not certain if I believe this, but a former co-worker of mine told me that before the End Times, the Lord will give all people a chance to rejoin the Lord, to repent. She said that the new media - satellite t.v. - ensures that "all people" are given the opportunity to see the Passion and come back to Him before it's too late. Makes sense, and gets you thinking.

Glad you enjoyed. I thought it was a great article as well, and truly put the critics views in perfect perspective.

God bless

I heard someone say that the dividing line between those who loved the Passion was not Jew vs Christian but was rather those who love their sin and those who do not.

Thanks for posting this. The Met has Man of Sorrows mentioned in the article available on the web:

LINK

In all fairness, do we know for a fact that all the critics, who as far as we can tell, were 100% wrong, have not admitted their mistake and examined their erroneous premises? Has anyone even bothered to ask them?

That they are not going to volunteer that admission is understandable. No "expert", self-styled or otherwise, is about to volunteer to admit such an enormous blunder.

It seems to me that quite a few of the 'critics' of the Passion of The Christ were motivated by religious bigotry.

There was a recent article here that makes the point: Oscars to Snub Mel Gibson's 'Passion'

bump