Replies

Some thoughts on Mel's film:

Many applaud Mel for telling the historical "truth" against all odds. This raises several questions for me:

If Mel was concerned about accuracy and historical truth, why did he use as his source material documents written by nuns nearly two millenia after the Jesus of Nazareth was killed?

Furthermore, his other source material, the Gospels themselves (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E.), differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more.

The probable cause for these contradictions: the evangelists wrote some forty to seventy years after Jesus's execution.

Now the language of the film (Latin and Aramaic) which is supposed to lend "authenticity" also raises questions:

Aramaic was indeed the daily language of ancient Jews in Galilee and Judea, but Latin would scarcely have figured at all. When the Jewish high priest and the Roman prefect spoke to each other, they would have used Greek, which was the English of antiquity. And Pilate's troops, employees of Rome, were not "Romans." They were Greek-speaking local gentiles on the imperial payroll.

Upon close analysis of what is known about the film, one concludes that the true historical framing of Gibson's script is neither early first-century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the late first-century Mediterranean diaspora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe.

Therefore, all claims that the film goes to great lengths to tell historical "truths" are put in question, and it becomes clear that this is a film not about the true story of a hugely significant historical event, but rather, it is a $25 million representation of the traditionalist Catholic ideology to which Mel Gibson subscribes, with no basis in actual historical fact.

Everything you just wrote is from Paula Fredrickson's(sp?) in the New Republic. There are several innaccuracies in her article, and this is the most glaring:

John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely.

John's Gospel does indeed include the trial before the Sanhedrin. The difference is that in John, Jesus first goes to the former High Priest Annas before He is taken to Joseph Caiphas. It is in John's Gospel that the servant of the High Priest slaps Jesus in the face. To say that there is no trial in John shows me that the lady who wrote that hit piece on Mel hasn't picked up the NT in a long time.

As far as the other criticisms, none of the Gospels contradict each other on Jesus' last words. It's always been traditional that He said "Eli Eli...", then His last cry was "It is Accomplished!" before commending His noble spirit to His Father in Heaven. This is complete nitpicking on the authors part; every other film on Jesus has used the last words of Christ in the traditional form, and I've never heard about any scholars objecting then. Attacking Mel on this point is attacking the whole of Christian tradition.

As for the nuns writings, Anne Catherine Emmerich is about to be beatified by the Catholic Church and her writings are fully in line with the mystical writings of other saints and holy people. Great artists from the Middle Ages and the Rennaissance period often used the saints descriptions of Christ and the Blessed Mother in their works(for instance, probably the most famous crucifixion painting, by Matthias Gruenwald, was inspired by the visions of St. Bridget of Sweden). Why shouldn't Mel be allowed this bit of artistic freedom and license?

Certainly the same people who are now attacking Gibson for making this film didn't seem to mind when Scorcese used a 1944 novel by an excommunicated Greek Orthodox laymen for inspiration for his film about the death of Christ.