Replies

The charge against the film, is that the Roman Pontius Pilate (sp) was depicted as a restraining influence on the blood lust Jewish mob (albeit an ineffectual one). Who knows if that is an accurate depiction of history, although I heard that Pilate was removed from his a few years later for excessive cruelty. Of course, anyone who views Jews of today through such a lense, just has another agenda.

But, without seeing the film, it seems to me, the biggest flaw is that it fails to give enough focus on the lyricism of Jesus's message of trying to transcend hatred, and live a good life, respectful of others, in hopes of an eternal reward (in other words, a just pluralistic process on this mortal coil). That message was revolutionary. Rather the emphasis was on blood and guts, and suffering, and almost a celebration of the blood letting as a cleansing event.

But I have not seen the film. But I will. Maybe I will change my mind.

The film was a faithful representation of the Passion, hence the title. Don't believe the critics.

I saw the film. Concerning Pilate, the film depicts him as having been warned by the Roman Emperor that if there is anymore bloodshed in Judea, the blood would include his. This fits the fact that historically he was removed by the Emperor for being too brutal; but it also corresponds with the gospels' account of Pilate as the reluctant player that is depicted in this film. [It is mere cant for the "scholars" to so linearly dismiss the reluctant Pilate of the gospels simply because he was later removed for brutality. ]

The film portrays Pilate as fearing a popular uprising and fearing one regardless of whether he freed Jesus or crucifies him. This is depicted in the film as the reason why he does the "Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas" ["I will wash my hands among the innocent"] washing his hands of Jesus' blood and fate but nevertheless directs his soldiers to do what "they" want, menaing what is desired by "the Jews" including mostly the high priests--after "they" have just demanded that he be crucified.

It is interesting that scholars report that the gospel writers might have had reasons not to emphasize Pilate's actual role, but I suspect such scholarship of possible revisionism with an agenda to avoid blaming Jews. I grew up in Catholic schools in the 50's and 60's and I never ever heard the Jews blamed for the death of Jesus. My testimony must sound amazing to those who for some reason believe that Catholic schools in the US were foaming with haterd of the Jews, but I never even heard a stray antisemetic remark. Perhaps it is more of a European phenomenom, but for my part, it really struck me as weird when I first heard that anti-Semitism was in part based upon a belief that the Jewish race was responsible for the passion and crucifxion of Jesus.

This is among the many reasons that I agree with the posted article that it was foolish for Jewish figures and groups to attack Mel Gibson's film project, and they have been doing it for almost a year. It really seemed to have a leftish Jewish orientation centered around the Frank Rich approach from his perch at the NY Times. Rich is a classic distortionartist and his attack against Gibson appeared to be particularly unfair. I really wonder at the true motives beind the early attempt to censure Gibson and warn the studios against his project. It appeared to be an attempt to snuff out a fil project but it also became part of another leftist attack against the so-called "Christian Right" of the imaginations of the NY Times and the rest of the leftist media-political nexus.

I believe that this was not an attempt to ward off anti-Semitism but rather an cynical attempt to find a vehicle with which to castigate the Christian right by tarring it with the imagined anti-Semitism supposedly inherent in Gibson's movie. The goal was to deaden the right for this 2004 election season.

I believe that just the opposite will occur. The christian right will now be unbelievably mobilized and energized in this election year, in many respects because of this movie and the way that there was this mob squad of detractors set against it. Of course, now the very culrits are now accusing Gibson of having master-minded their entire debacle as a marketing tool. [This is why the left is always too clever by half and never learns what should be its lessons.]

But, without seeing the film, it seems to me, the biggest flaw is that it fails to give enough focus on the lyricism of Jesus's message of trying to transcend hatred, and live a good life, respectful of others, in hopes of an eternal reward (in other words, a just pluralistic process on this mortal coil). . . .

The movie I saw conveyed just that.

I heard that Pilate was removed from his a few years later for excessive cruelty. Of course, anyone who views Jews of today through such a lense, just has another agenda.

What?

As portrayed in the movie, Pilate had two restraining factors. First, when taking Jesus aside, he found the man no threat to him or Caesar since Jesus said His kingdom is not of this earth. Secondly, Pilate's wife had a dream that day regarding Christ and put her concerns to her husband. Roman women were quite influential on their husbands and my bet is that this influenced his restraint more than any sense of altuism towards Jesus. In the final review though, Pilate still chose his move carefully based on politics--we know too many of these today to find the man sympathetic in any way. BTW, as Jesus is on the cross he prays for Caiphus and the others. If that isn't forgiveness right there for the roles of CORRUPT Jews, then what is and if we are to emulate Jesus, why on earth would a Christian not follow his example?
I'm sorry, but in the end, *some* Jews can not be absolved of their responsibility for putting another JEW to death anymore than *some* Germans can be absolved of their attempt to committ genocide against Jews--it is an ugly truth that is there like any other fact in history--most can differentiate between ancient times and present time. This was how it was meant to be so how anymore Christian or Jew can get their knickers in a twist over it and blame present day Jews is beyond me. The insinuation by Jewish organizations is insulting. Their commentary also needs to be appropriate for their audience. I doubt they need to worry about the fires of anti-semitism in the US, they should be focusing their attentions on Europe where anti-semitism is on the rise and instead of attacking history, attack Europeans who are so far from any belief in Christ and would use this movie as an excuse to castigate Jews.

"But I have not seen the film. But I will. Maybe I will change my mind."

Definitely see the film-- I think you WILL change your mind.