Replies

Having viewed the film I find nothing anti semetic in it. However- I wish Gibson had not included the non Gospels character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, as a sympathaizer of Christ. Pilate is presented as being far more culpalble in tradiotinal Catholic recitations of The Passion. The character of Claudia is a later Catholic story coming from popular middle age mystics. So is the scene in which Christ is shown punched off the bridge by temple guards and then hauled back up. Not trying to offend believers in these Catholic mystics but I think He should have kept the film totally within the Gospels themselves. Other than those two deviations the film is a masterpiece.

The only other slight criticism I have is that the scourging of Christ scene goes on a bit longer than necessary. The actual crucifixction in the film looks merciful in comparison.

"I wish Gibson had not included the non Gospels character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, as a sympathaizer of Christ."

This was not made up by Gibson - it's in the Bible (Matthew 27:19):

"While he [Pilate] was still presiding on the bench, his wife sent him a message: 'Do not interfere in the case of that holy man. I had a dream about him today which has greatly upset me'" Gibson embellished it a little, but the kernel of that story is in the Bible.

But one non-Bilical story he DID introduce was the pro-Jewish legend of Veronica, the woman who wiped the face of Jesus as he stumbled with the cross. According to Medieval legend, the cloth retained the miraculous image of the face of Christ.

Pilate's wife is mentioned in the gospels, although not by name, and I always saw her as what might be termed a "sympathetic figure" to Jesus, although she may have been merely more objective than those who had a personal stake in the outcome.

In my understanding of the history of the day, the brutal scourging received by Jesus was enough alone to have killed most men and was extreme, even for the Romans. The scriptures also speak of Him drinking the cup of suffering....which, when you consider that that meant bearing the burden of paying for every sin that had been, or ever would be committed, by man, it is understandable. Also, when the time came that He had fulfilled His purpose on the cross, He is the one who determined that "it is finished." He had said that no man took His life, but that He gave it up willingly. That is evidenced by the fact that His legs didn't have to be broken to expedite His death, as was common practice.

I haven't seen the film yet....haven't been able to get tickets at a time I would be able to go. I hope to see it this coming week sometime.

I wish Gibson had not included the non Gospels character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, as a sympathaizer of Christ.

Pilate's wife is mentioned in the Bible, and as I just posted about watching Jesus Christ Superstar again, and noting many of the criticisms hurled at "The Passion" could (but weren't) lobbed at that rock opera, Pilate's wife is also presented in JCS.

The only other slight criticism I have is that the scourging of Christ scene goes on a bit longer than necessary. The actual crucifixction in the film looks merciful in comparison.

I disagree. The Roman scourging was believed to be one stroke less than it would take to kill any man. Isaiah said His visage was marred more than any man. His form marred more than the sons of men. In the film, they left Jesus' beard on His face, while scripture tells us they yanked it out. I think Mr. Gibson toned down His scourging.