Questioning "The Passion of the Christ"

Noel Vera

Mel Gibson and his publicists have repeatedly claimed that his "The
Passion of the Christ" is the most historically accurate of all
pictures made on Jesus.

Actually--no. Historians have pointed out various inaccuracies--that
Jesus would have spoken to Pontius Pilate in Greek (the lingua franca
of the time), not Latin, and so would the Roman soldiers (who were
conscripts from various nearby regions, not actual Romans); that
Jesus would have carried a crossbeam and not the entire cross (which
weighed something like 350 pounds); that he would have been nailed
through the wrist and not the palms (his weight would have pulled the
nails through his palms); that his cross used a projecting seat and
not a footrest to support him; that his fellow convicts should have
been scourged, as is standard Roman practice, instead of him alone.
Gibson in reply has said that he has read many accounts and that as
they often conflicted with each other he felt free to choose
a "middle way," so to speak. It's significant, though, that Gibson's
choices are often consistent with classic depictions of Jesus and his
passion, rather than with the latest archeological findings.

Accuracy isn't the only controversy associated with this picture;
there is also the charge that "Passion" is anti-Semitic, that it
promotes the old idea that the Jews as a race are responsible for
killing Christ. Gibson's publicist Paul Lauer puts an ingenious spin
to this accusation, saying that to call the movie anti-Semitic is "to
call the New Testament Gospels anti-Semitic," implying along the way
that the movie is a faithful adaptation from the New Testaments (the
marketing campaign has also trumpeted the picture as being the most
biblically accurate yet made).

Is it? I mean--is it historically and biblically accurate, and are
the charges of anti-Semitism false? The answer to these questions,
interestingly enough, seem interrelated.

Some elements in the picture are definitely not from the Bible--an
androgynous Satan (in interviews Gibson refers to him as a "Satanic"
figure) tempting Christ in the garden of Gethsemane and walking among
the Jews who watch Jesus being whipped; an effeminate Herod, heavily
rouged and eyelinered, mocking Jesus as he's brought before him
(strange how few critics have noted the picture's homophobia); a
Pilate and his wife, wringing their hands over the death of an
innocent man.

To be fair, Gibson can't help but rearrange and insert extra scenes:
the four Gospels offer varying, sometimes even contradictory,
accounts, and their coverage of Jesus' final hours is sketchy when it
comes to physical details about crucifixion and scourging. Sometimes
when making a picture you have to add or make changes, for dramatic
impact and narrative clarity.

But as Catholic teaching--or at least mainstream Catholic teaching--
declares: "It is not sufficient for the producers of passion
dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by
appealing to the notion that 'it's in the Bible.' One must account
for one's selections" (National Conference of Catholic
Bishops, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the
Passion," 1988).

Philip Cunningham, Executive Director of the Center for Christian-
Jewish Learning at Boston College makes some interesting points in
his article "'The Passion of the Christ:' A Challenge to Catholic
Teaching." He points out that in the movie's pivotal scene, Gibson
selected a passage from the Gospel according to John, where Pilate
orders Jesus scourged, hoping to appease the crowd demanding his
crucifixion. When this tactic fails, Pilate appeals to Jesus for
help, to which Jesus replies "He who delivered me to you (Jewish high
priest Caiaphas) has the greater sin."

Gibson then tacked on a passage from Matthew where Caiaphas calls out
in Aramaic "Let his blood be on us and our children!" (Gibson's claim
to have cut this scene is false; he merely removed the subtitles).
Pilate washes his hands (the scene is found in Matthew), in effect
absolving him of the whole affair, granting the Jewish crowd what
they want--Jesus' crucifixion.

The net result of this joining of scenes from John (the scourging,
the 'greater sin') and Matthew ('blood be on us and our children,'
hand-washing) is to shift blame away from Pilate onto Caiaphas and
the Jewish crowd; the net result is a depiction of Pilate as more
compassionate and of the Jews as more determinedly bloodthirsty than
is actually found in either John's or Matthew's Gospels. The net
result is a heightening of Jewish guilt, and a relative exoneration
of the Roman (of senior Roman officials, at that).

True, most of the passages cited can be found in the Bible and even
taken separately they seem to indicate a common trend. Now is as good
a time as any, then, to ask the question implicit in Lauer's earlier
assertion: is the New Testament anti-Semitic?

Putting aside the anachronism of the question (the term 'anti-
Semitism' was coined in the nineteenth century), it must be noted
that the Gospels were originally oral traditions written from fifty
to seventy years after Christ had died, and that they reflected the
times of the writers as much as of Christ--times when the early
Christians were struggling to reply to unbelieving Jews and reach out
to the Romans. Bible historians and theologians know this, and what's
more the Vatican (whose authority Gibson rejects) admits this as
well, saying "The Gospels are the outcome of long and complicated
editorial work…Hence it cannot be ruled out that some references
hostile to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts
between the nascent church and the Jewish community" (Pontifical
Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, "Notes on the
Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Teaching in
the Roman Catholic Church" 1985).

Cunningham writes "Honesty demands the recognition that Christians
have used (and abused) the New Testament over the centuries to claim
that "the Jews" were cursed for rejecting and crucifying Jesus." He
notes that from the late middle ages onwards, passion plays much like
the one Gibson has adapted (with additions) to the big screen were
performed every Holy Week, and that these plays "regularly inspired
violence against Jews." Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, leader of Chicago's
KAM-Isaiah Israel Congregation reminds us that Adolf Hitler praised
the Passion Play at Oberammergau, declaring it "vital that it be
continued…for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly
portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of
the Romans" (the play was revised several years ago, with the help of
Jewish advisers).

Catholic teaching warns that "Jews should not be portrayed as
avaricious; blood thirsty (e.g., in certain depiction's of Jesus'
appearances before the Temple priesthood or before Pilate); or
implacable enemies of Christ (e.g., by changing the small "crowd" at
the governor's palace into a teeming mob)" (National Conference of
Catholic Bishops, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of
the Passion," 1988). It stresses the "overriding preoccupation to
bring out explicitly the meaning of the (Gospel) text while taking
scriptural studies into account" (Vatican Commission for Religious
Relations with the Jews, "Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing
the Conciliar Declaration 'Nostra Aetate,'" 1974). To, in other
words, consider what today's biblical scholars have to say as well
and not read the Bible too literally, as Gibson's movie has done.

How then is one--in this case, Gibson--to "account for one's
selections?" Granted Gibson is of a Traditionalist sect that refuses
to recognize the authority of the pope in Rome (which makes his
trumpeting of said pope's endorsement of his movie--since withdrawn--
all the more disingenuous), and the validity of Vatican 2. Still, the
idea is sound, whether you believe in the Vatican's authority or not:
one must be responsible for the choices one makes in telling a story,
and must be able to give good reasons as to why they were made,
especially when said choices come together to create a false and
harmful image.

Actually, Gibson is perfectly capable of accounting for his choices;
he just doesn't seem at all eager or even willing to do so. As
Cunningham puts it, "Gibson has actually created a cinematic version
not so much of the Gospels but of Anne Catherine Emmerich's purported
visions of the death of Jesus."

Anne Catherine Emmerich was a 19th century Augustinian nun known for
her visions of the life of Christ. The German Romantic poet, Clemens
Brentano, offered to write down her visions and the result was "The
Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the Meditations of
Anne Catherine Emmerich," published in 1833.

The book was internationally renowned, as much for its violent,
rather exaggerated imagery of Christ's suffering as for being full of
closely observed details of Palestine that (as some readers who
visited the country noted) a simple German nun could not have
possibly imagined. The question arose, however, whether the visions
are truly Catherine's or embellished by Brentano; when German experts
sifted through his papers after his death, their general conclusion
was--after finding travel literature and biblical apocrypha amongst
his papers--that only a small portion of the text is Emmerich's.

Emmerich's name was submitted for beatification in 1892; the process
was halted in 1928 because of the questions on her visions'
authenticity. The process was resumed in 1979, but with the explicit
provision that her writings be excluded. Father John O'Malley, SJ, in
his article "A Movie, a Mystic, and a Spiritual Tradition: Anne
Catherine Emmerich & the Passion of the Christ" tells us: " The
official opinion on the writings has thus for a long time been sober
and even skeptical." He adds: " I would not recommend it to anybody
today. It is anti-Semitic to the degree (sometimes considerable) that
virtually all nineteenth-century retellings of the Passion, whether
by Catholics or Protestants, were anti-Semitic."

Here's a sample of one of her visions: "The soul of the old Jewess
Meyr told me on the way that it was true that in former times the
Jews, both in our country and elsewhere, had strangled many
Christians, principally children, and used their blood for all sort
of superstitious and diabolical practices. She had once believed it
lawful; but she now knew that it was abominable murder. They still
follow such practices in this country and in others more distant; but
very secretly, because they are obliged to have commercial
intercourse with Christians" ("The Life and Revelations of Anne
Catherine Emmerich").

Cunningham asserts in his article that Gibson owes many of his non-
biblical images (Jesus thrown off a bridge, Pilate admonishing the
Jews on their abuse of Jesus, an effeminate Herod, Pilate's wife
giving Jesus' mother cloth to wipe away his blood, Jesus falling
seven times, Christ's arm dislocated to fit holes drilled into the
cross), and even the ordering and selection of scenes from the
Gospels to Emmerich (John joined with Matthew to form Christ and
Pilate's meeting). Gibson has reportedly denied using Emmerich as a
source and does not consider her anti-Semitic (!); in a February 16
television interview, however, he said Emmerich "supplied me with
stuff I never would have thought of," and admitted to carrying what
he thinks is a relic of her.

It's possible that Gibson doesn't believe himself anti-Semitic--D.W.
Griffith didn't think he was racist when he made "Birth of a Nation"--
and probable that he didn't intend his picture to be such; to his
credit he does include a prominent role for Simon of Cyrene, who
helps carry Jesus and his cross on the way to Golgotha (though you
can't help but notice, from the way Gibson presents Simon, that he's
practically on his way to becoming a Christian convert, and that no
positive depiction of a character who supports Judaism can be found).
For his picture, unfortunately, Gibson has chosen to translate
onscreen an old theatrical form known to have inspired hatred for
Jews; has chosen scenes from the Gospels in a way that heightens
Jewish guilt; has tried to polarize debate so that anyone not for his
movie is against Christianity and the Bible.

He may not be consciously anti-Semitic but by pointedly ignoring the
principles set by orthodox Catholic teachings on dramatizations of
Jesus' passion and by depending instead on the visions of an
outspokenly anti-Semitic nun, Gibson has created a movie remarkably
open to abuse by anti-Semitics, much as the Gospels themselves have
been abused in the past, as a justification for persecuting the Jews.

Putting aside, the question of anti-Semitism, is the movie still to
be recommended, theologically? Cunningham says the picture promotes
the view that "God had to be satisfied or appeased for the countless
sins of humanity by subjecting his son to unspeakable torments,"
which isn't the case--Christ's crucifixion is meaningless without his
resurrection; it's the whole reason for his suffering. Gibson's movie
upends this emphasis, focuses on Christ's physical sufferings
(including much that was added thanks to Emmerich), and confines the
resurrection to a few quick moments onscreen. Fr. O'Malley points out
that this emphasis and at times overemphasis of the crucifixion and
of Christ's suffering are a trend of recent centuries, and that "The
reforms of the Easter triduum that began with Pius XII and were
continued with the liturgical changes during and after Vatican II
were, among other things, an attempt to redress the balance."

So what can be done about this picture? I don't believe in
censorship, or outright banning, and I doubt if the Movie and
Television Ratings and Classification Board (MTRCB) will ban it
either (I expect glowing praise of the movie on the copy of their
decision posted outside theater gates). Rumor has it that they will
give the picture a rating of PG 13--which would be awful; bringing
anyone younger than sixteen into this movie is, I think, tantamount
to cruel child abuse.

Rabbi Sandmel may have the most sensible answer--he proposes
converting the movie into a "teachable moment" for Christians and
Jews (mainly Catholics, here in Manila), to watch the picture, be
aware of its errors, understand both the context in which the movie
was made, and the proper context in which Jesus' Passion should be
seen and understood.

(With thanks to Philip Cunningham, Executive Director of the Center
for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College for permission to
quote extensively from his article "'The Passion of the Christ:' A
Challenge to Catholic Teaching," found online at:

http://www.bc.edu/cjlearning)

(Fr. John O'Malley's article "A Movie, a Mystic, and a Spiritual
Tradition: Anne Catherine Emmerich & the Passion of the Christ" is
at:

http://www.americamagazine.org/articles/omalley-emmerich.cfm)

(To compare Gibson's movie with Emmerich's visions, go to:

http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
)

(Originally published in Businessworld, March 19, 2004)

(Comments? Email me at noelbotevera@...)