Hollywood star Mel Gibson has produced yet another film depicting the Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. “The Passion of the Christ” is purported to be an “authentic” portrayal, in that it is based upon the Gospels and the actors and actresses speak in Aramaic and Latin.
It may seem strange for someone to write a review of a film he has not seen – and has no intention of seeing – but all the hype that has surrounded this production calls for some sort of comment.
Other film-makers can only envy Mr. Gibson’s extraordinary pre-release publicity campaign, as the film’s pro and anti forces vie for attention, ensuring the production’s financial success.
Many “Christian” and Jewish leaders are acting as if they are all working for Mr. Gibson. The former as proponents; the latter as antagonists, in the old “good cop, bad cop” scenario.
Many Jewish groups are even concerned that the film will generate an upsurge in anti-Semitism, by evoking the old shibboleth that “The Jews killed Christ”.
What utter Nonsense !
Midst all the ballyhoo, let’s look at the claim for authenticity, both in its historic and religious aspects.
Christian belief – as presented in the Gospels - holds that God became Man, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, called “Christ”, a Greek word meaning the “Annointed”, a Greek translation of the Jewish term, “Messiah”. St. Paul is said to have first used the term, “Christian” for those who believe that Jesus is “The Son of God” and the long-awaited Jewish “Messiah”. Most Jews do not.
When Christ was teaching, Jews lived under the domination of Rome and all of Palestine was divided into several Roman provinces. The Hasmonean Kingdom - which had overthrown the Hellenic control of the region and achieved Jewish independence - had fallen into decline and Rome had replaced Greece as the regional colonial power.
Although Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire, the “Lingua Franca” throughout the Eastern Mediterranean was primarily Greek, with Aramaic running a close second.
To be truly authentic, Mr. Gibson’s film would have had to be made in Greek, as well as Aramaic.
The Roman Occupation Forces in Palestine originated from diverse parts of the Empire and thus would have spoken in Greek with the Jews – not Latin or Aramaic. Too few locals would have been able to understand Latin, the official language of the new empire and too few Romans would have understood Aramaic, the local language.
While Jews may have spoken with one another in Hebrew, the language itself was considered sacred and Aramaic was – as Mr. Gibson asserts – the everyday language spoken among Jews and the many other ethnic groups living alongside them.
One of the strengths of Hebrew civilisation is the fact that no Jewish kingdom was ever exclusively “Jewish” – not even at the height of their temporal power, under King Solomon. The Jews of the area spoke Aramaic and Greek, along with their Gentile neighbors.
Torture
From all reports, Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” depicts in graphic detail the sufferings of “Christ” - the scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying of the cross, crucifixion and death. The reports indicate that the essential Christian belief in the Resurrection is not emphasised, merely “The Passion”.
Crucifixion was the standard Roman method of capital punishment for various offences, from theft to rebellion. The standard Jewish method of execution was death by stoning. The Christian Bible points this out in the “Acts of the Apostles”, when Stephen, considered the first Christian martyr, is stoned for Blasphemy.
Obviously, the Crucifixion was a Roman execution and not Jewish !
Yes, there is the assertion that this was done at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. Even if true, the ultimate executioners were Roman. Jews did not scourge Christ or commit any of the tortures associated with “The Passion”, even if a few might have approved. According to the Gospels, however, the majority of the Jewish people did NOT approve but was cowed into submission. Military presences tend to have that effect.
Why then this two thousand year old myth ?
At the time of the Crucifixion and during the decades that followed, “Christians” formed one of the many Jewish sects centred around The Temple in Jerusalem – all under the watchful eye of the Roman authorities who – at the time - tolerated all forms of worship, within the Empire.
While some Jewish sects prohibited proselytism, others welcomed converts and still others allowed what were called “God-fearers”, Gentiles who believed in the God of the Jews but who, being Gentiles, could not be fully recognized, officially.
When the emperor cult emerged in Rome, however, all who would not bow to the emperor – as a god – were considered a threat to the State. Jews, “God -fearers” and Christians alike came under threat and – in a very simplified account – The Temple was eventually destroyed and the Jews dispersed. The long exile began.
The “Christian” Jews, believing that the “end of the world” was at hand, fled and did not assist in the defense of The Temple. Naturally, loyal Jews resented this and anathematised the “Christians”. The “Christians” had earlier begun to condemn those Jews who did not accept Jesus as the “Messiah”. Without The Temple, there was no longer a common meeting point and the two groups diverged and lost communication, each developing seperate theological systems while nurturing mutual resentments.
The Messianic Claim
The Gospels are permeated with various arguments, asserting that Jesus is the “Messiah” – arguments that in a Jewish context are unconvincing, since the essence of the term signifies “the One Who will restore God’s direct Rule on Earth”. Many Jews, however, did believe that Jesus was the “Messiah, as evidenced by His birth, teachings and miracles. These were the earliest Christians, along with Gentiles in the region.
When the Crucifixion occurred, however, and the “Divine Kingdom” was not apparent, the claim seemed hollow, indeed.
Since then, Christians have sought ways to reinterpret the term “Messiah”, ignoring its original meaning.
It is no wonder that Judaism and Christianity differ in their view of Christ, even though they both teach the same basic moral precepts and worship the One God.
Muslims also worship the One God and have the same moral precepts as do Jews and Christians but do not have the same problem, since they regard all Messengers of God as “Prophets”.
The Claim to Divinity
What most separates Jews, Christians and Muslims is the Christian belief that Christ is actually God. This is tantamount to blasphemy in the theologies of both Judaism and Islam.
The appearance of the Divinity in earthly form is not alien to other religions. In Hinduism, for example, this is referred to as “Avatars”, of which Sri Krsna and Rama are perhaps best known in the West, although there are several others.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Monotheistic religions, believing in a transcendental God separate from Creation, whereas Hinduism sees all that ever was, is and will be as the Divinity. The Avatars, as well as each one of us, including animals, birds, fish, plants, etc, are parts of God.
The Buddha sought to simplify this by ignoring all such manifestations and seeking only realisation of the Divinity. Then, by denying Divinity and finding only a void or "nothingness", he withdrew himself from the equation.
Who Killed Christ ?
To single out any one group is absurd – particularly if one believes that Christ is God – as Christians claim they believe.
If we accept the Gospels, their assertion of the Divinity of Christ and the story of how Jewish and Roman authorities colluded in the Crucifixion, we can only come to a few simple conclusions.
Roman officials held the secular authority in the story, as told, while Jewish officials held the religious authority. “Christians” included Jews and Romans, pagans and Zoroastrians, (if we remember the “Wise Men from the East”).
In short, the authorities did it, in spite of the wishes of the “people” – the “people” being mostly Jews.
Put another way, since the authorities represent the “people” – everyone did it, including all of us. This is stated in Christian belief as “Christ died for our sins.”
On the other hand, according to Christian Theology, God did it.
The Christian concept of the Trinity offers perhaps the best explanation.
God “The Father”, sent God “The Son” to Earth, so that God “The Holy Spirit” might merge with all who believe. This is not that dissimilar to the Hindu belief in Monism and “Prana”, “the Divine Breath or Spirit that permeates all”, which Hindhus believe is omni-present but must be realised and which Christians assert must be accepted.
What then of Mel Gibson’s film ?
From all reports, it seems to be yet another sado-masochistic presentation of a few days in the life of Christ – days which were intended to show that suffering and death are but momentary, while the Resurrection leads to “Eternal Life” – or so Christianity teaches.
Is “The Passion of the Christ” a “Christian” film ? Possibly.
It may, however, ignore the message of “Christ” – which is what most religions try to get us to do, by arguing about personalities and rituals while obscuring moral teachings.
Will it be a financial success ? Most likely.
Most people appear to be encouraged by social arbiters to indulge their sado-masochism while focusing on all that divides us, instead of actually following the teachings of “Christ” – which are compatible with all religions and could be a unifying force.
His teachings are difficult to follow because they require self examination and do not promote superstition and cruelty – except if you happen to be a non-productive fig tree.
These Teachings also happen to be included in the Jewish Scriptures. Christ simply brought forward their universal aspects and clarified some of the confusion.
We are told that we are all responsible for our own actions. We are told to identify with others and help one another – particularly the less fortunate. We are told to put ourelves in the other person’s shoes – regardless of his or her belief. This is not dissimilar to Platonic thinking which was influential throughout the Hellenic world and was - until recently - an important ingredient in comparative thinking.
Small wonder that Kris Kristofferson wrote a song about “Christ” which says: “Reckon we’d just nail Him up, if He came down again.”
Maybe we ought to look at ourselves and our own so-called “leaders” instead of yet another hyped-up Hollywood “entertainment”.
Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” opens in the U.S., tomorrow. It might be better to skip the gore and spend the ticket price on someone in need.
If you do see the film, better to judge it on its artistic merits. One might also read the Gospels and get the original version of the story. For a moment, put aside all the various interpretations expounded by all the various religious groupings and make up your own mind. We should all study history and place the story within its proper context, ourselves.
Paul V. Rafferty
It may seem strange for someone to write a review of a film he has not seen – and has no intention of seeing – but all the hype that has surrounded this production calls for some sort of comment.
Other film-makers can only envy Mr. Gibson’s extraordinary pre-release publicity campaign, as the film’s pro and anti forces vie for attention, ensuring the production’s financial success.
Many “Christian” and Jewish leaders are acting as if they are all working for Mr. Gibson. The former as proponents; the latter as antagonists, in the old “good cop, bad cop” scenario.
Many Jewish groups are even concerned that the film will generate an upsurge in anti-Semitism, by evoking the old shibboleth that “The Jews killed Christ”.
What utter Nonsense !
Midst all the ballyhoo, let’s look at the claim for authenticity, both in its historic and religious aspects.
Christian belief – as presented in the Gospels - holds that God became Man, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, called “Christ”, a Greek word meaning the “Annointed”, a Greek translation of the Jewish term, “Messiah”. St. Paul is said to have first used the term, “Christian” for those who believe that Jesus is “The Son of God” and the long-awaited Jewish “Messiah”. Most Jews do not.
When Christ was teaching, Jews lived under the domination of Rome and all of Palestine was divided into several Roman provinces. The Hasmonean Kingdom - which had overthrown the Hellenic control of the region and achieved Jewish independence - had fallen into decline and Rome had replaced Greece as the regional colonial power.
Although Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire, the “Lingua Franca” throughout the Eastern Mediterranean was primarily Greek, with Aramaic running a close second.
To be truly authentic, Mr. Gibson’s film would have had to be made in Greek, as well as Aramaic.
The Roman Occupation Forces in Palestine originated from diverse parts of the Empire and thus would have spoken in Greek with the Jews – not Latin or Aramaic. Too few locals would have been able to understand Latin, the official language of the new empire and too few Romans would have understood Aramaic, the local language.
While Jews may have spoken with one another in Hebrew, the language itself was considered sacred and Aramaic was – as Mr. Gibson asserts – the everyday language spoken among Jews and the many other ethnic groups living alongside them.
One of the strengths of Hebrew civilisation is the fact that no Jewish kingdom was ever exclusively “Jewish” – not even at the height of their temporal power, under King Solomon. The Jews of the area spoke Aramaic and Greek, along with their Gentile neighbors.
Torture
From all reports, Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” depicts in graphic detail the sufferings of “Christ” - the scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying of the cross, crucifixion and death. The reports indicate that the essential Christian belief in the Resurrection is not emphasised, merely “The Passion”.
Crucifixion was the standard Roman method of capital punishment for various offences, from theft to rebellion. The standard Jewish method of execution was death by stoning. The Christian Bible points this out in the “Acts of the Apostles”, when Stephen, considered the first Christian martyr, is stoned for Blasphemy.
Obviously, the Crucifixion was a Roman execution and not Jewish !
Yes, there is the assertion that this was done at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. Even if true, the ultimate executioners were Roman. Jews did not scourge Christ or commit any of the tortures associated with “The Passion”, even if a few might have approved. According to the Gospels, however, the majority of the Jewish people did NOT approve but was cowed into submission. Military presences tend to have that effect.
Why then this two thousand year old myth ?
At the time of the Crucifixion and during the decades that followed, “Christians” formed one of the many Jewish sects centred around The Temple in Jerusalem – all under the watchful eye of the Roman authorities who – at the time - tolerated all forms of worship, within the Empire.
While some Jewish sects prohibited proselytism, others welcomed converts and still others allowed what were called “God-fearers”, Gentiles who believed in the God of the Jews but who, being Gentiles, could not be fully recognized, officially.
When the emperor cult emerged in Rome, however, all who would not bow to the emperor – as a god – were considered a threat to the State. Jews, “God -fearers” and Christians alike came under threat and – in a very simplified account – The Temple was eventually destroyed and the Jews dispersed. The long exile began.
The “Christian” Jews, believing that the “end of the world” was at hand, fled and did not assist in the defense of The Temple. Naturally, loyal Jews resented this and anathematised the “Christians”. The “Christians” had earlier begun to condemn those Jews who did not accept Jesus as the “Messiah”. Without The Temple, there was no longer a common meeting point and the two groups diverged and lost communication, each developing seperate theological systems while nurturing mutual resentments.
The Messianic Claim
The Gospels are permeated with various arguments, asserting that Jesus is the “Messiah” – arguments that in a Jewish context are unconvincing, since the essence of the term signifies “the One Who will restore God’s direct Rule on Earth”. Many Jews, however, did believe that Jesus was the “Messiah, as evidenced by His birth, teachings and miracles. These were the earliest Christians, along with Gentiles in the region.
When the Crucifixion occurred, however, and the “Divine Kingdom” was not apparent, the claim seemed hollow, indeed.
Since then, Christians have sought ways to reinterpret the term “Messiah”, ignoring its original meaning.
It is no wonder that Judaism and Christianity differ in their view of Christ, even though they both teach the same basic moral precepts and worship the One God.
Muslims also worship the One God and have the same moral precepts as do Jews and Christians but do not have the same problem, since they regard all Messengers of God as “Prophets”.
The Claim to Divinity
What most separates Jews, Christians and Muslims is the Christian belief that Christ is actually God. This is tantamount to blasphemy in the theologies of both Judaism and Islam.
The appearance of the Divinity in earthly form is not alien to other religions. In Hinduism, for example, this is referred to as “Avatars”, of which Sri Krsna and Rama are perhaps best known in the West, although there are several others.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Monotheistic religions, believing in a transcendental God separate from Creation, whereas Hinduism sees all that ever was, is and will be as the Divinity. The Avatars, as well as each one of us, including animals, birds, fish, plants, etc, are parts of God.
The Buddha sought to simplify this by ignoring all such manifestations and seeking only realisation of the Divinity. Then, by denying Divinity and finding only a void or "nothingness", he withdrew himself from the equation.
Who Killed Christ ?
To single out any one group is absurd – particularly if one believes that Christ is God – as Christians claim they believe.
If we accept the Gospels, their assertion of the Divinity of Christ and the story of how Jewish and Roman authorities colluded in the Crucifixion, we can only come to a few simple conclusions.
Roman officials held the secular authority in the story, as told, while Jewish officials held the religious authority. “Christians” included Jews and Romans, pagans and Zoroastrians, (if we remember the “Wise Men from the East”).
In short, the authorities did it, in spite of the wishes of the “people” – the “people” being mostly Jews.
Put another way, since the authorities represent the “people” – everyone did it, including all of us. This is stated in Christian belief as “Christ died for our sins.”
On the other hand, according to Christian Theology, God did it.
The Christian concept of the Trinity offers perhaps the best explanation.
God “The Father”, sent God “The Son” to Earth, so that God “The Holy Spirit” might merge with all who believe. This is not that dissimilar to the Hindu belief in Monism and “Prana”, “the Divine Breath or Spirit that permeates all”, which Hindhus believe is omni-present but must be realised and which Christians assert must be accepted.
What then of Mel Gibson’s film ?
From all reports, it seems to be yet another sado-masochistic presentation of a few days in the life of Christ – days which were intended to show that suffering and death are but momentary, while the Resurrection leads to “Eternal Life” – or so Christianity teaches.
Is “The Passion of the Christ” a “Christian” film ? Possibly.
It may, however, ignore the message of “Christ” – which is what most religions try to get us to do, by arguing about personalities and rituals while obscuring moral teachings.
Will it be a financial success ? Most likely.
Most people appear to be encouraged by social arbiters to indulge their sado-masochism while focusing on all that divides us, instead of actually following the teachings of “Christ” – which are compatible with all religions and could be a unifying force.
His teachings are difficult to follow because they require self examination and do not promote superstition and cruelty – except if you happen to be a non-productive fig tree.
These Teachings also happen to be included in the Jewish Scriptures. Christ simply brought forward their universal aspects and clarified some of the confusion.
We are told that we are all responsible for our own actions. We are told to identify with others and help one another – particularly the less fortunate. We are told to put ourelves in the other person’s shoes – regardless of his or her belief. This is not dissimilar to Platonic thinking which was influential throughout the Hellenic world and was - until recently - an important ingredient in comparative thinking.
Small wonder that Kris Kristofferson wrote a song about “Christ” which says: “Reckon we’d just nail Him up, if He came down again.”
Maybe we ought to look at ourselves and our own so-called “leaders” instead of yet another hyped-up Hollywood “entertainment”.
Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” opens in the U.S., tomorrow. It might be better to skip the gore and spend the ticket price on someone in need.
If you do see the film, better to judge it on its artistic merits. One might also read the Gospels and get the original version of the story. For a moment, put aside all the various interpretations expounded by all the various religious groupings and make up your own mind. We should all study history and place the story within its proper context, ourselves.
Paul V. Rafferty