The Passion of the Critics

Written by Scott Pruett

If you haven't yet heard about The Passion of the Christ then you haven't been watching the news. This film, produced, directed, and financed by Mel Gibson, has been stirring up controversy since word of it first hit the media. It focuses on the last hours in the life of Jesus, with flashbacks interspersed to flesh out the historical and theological context. Mel's stated goal was to maintain fidelity to the Gospel accounts, and this has been the kindling for a firestorm of criticism. Mel has received everything from personal attacks by secular commentators and Jewish groups to cold receptions from film distributors. In fact, for a period of time, there was concern for this film's ability to make it to broad release.

I've had an opportunity now to read many reviews of this movie; it is not my intention here to produce another. What I'd like to do is discuss the two major issues that I see haunting this film. The first regards the movie's content and the second regards its message.

"The movie doesn't accurately reflect the historical record"

This is a criticism primarily of liberal Christians and skeptics, and a fear of many conservative Christians.

First of all, it should be noted that Mel is a Roman Catholic of the most conservative variety. Regardless of how we Protestants might feel about the overall theology of Rome, we still share the common conviction of the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, and Mel has been keen to produce a faithful rendering of these. The fact that prerelease screenings of this film have garnered the approval of the Vatican, as well as evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham and James Dobson, is an indication of the orthodox portrait of Jesus that Mel has managed to produce. In fact, it is because he has largely succeeded in this objective that he is being vilified by the non-Christian community and had his difficulties in securing a distributor for the film, whereas wildly speculative works such as The Last Temptation of Christ had no such problems.

One article from Newsweek magazine gets at the heart of the problem that some have regarding Mel's production. The author says that "much of his movie is a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages scattered through the four Gospels . . . Gibson set out to stick to the Gospels and has made virtually no nod to critical analysis." For those who take the Bible "literally" this may be the best possible endorsement, but to the author of this article a "literal" interpretation misunderstands the real Jesus and the true historical events.

This objection actually turns out to be disingenuous. In what sense can one say that the Gospel accounts are true but not to be taken literally? The Gospels are presented in the style of historical narratives (though Jesus does choose to use many parables and metaphors in His style of teaching). The writers are even self-consciously presenting them as such; anyone who doubts this hasn't read the introduction to Luke's Gospel. In what "non-literal" way are we to take statements by Jesus such as, "no man comes to the Father except through me," or "before Abraham was, I AM"? What mere symbolic meaning are we to find in the trial, scourging, and crucifixion of Christ? If it were all merely a grand allegory, then the entire church has missed the point from the very outset; the apostles of Christ dropped the ball before the game could even get started!

What the critics really mean to say is that they contain some element of fact twisting, deception, or pure mythology. And this Newsweek commentator, to his credit, does go on to admit his belief in the bias and fallibility of the Scriptures. He tells us that the followers of Jesus had "visions to advance" and calls the author of Matthew a "partisan Gospel writer." He goes on to say that "the Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire - and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light." There is really no attempt at making a case that the movie is unfaithful to the Gospels as they stand; the attack is actually a subtle redirection toward Scripture itself.

Ultimately, the claim is not that the movie is not true to the Gospels, but that the Gospels are not true to history. But since there is no historical support that the Gospels are fictionalized or inaccurate, skeptics can only criticize this movie (or the Scriptures) based on their own presuppositions about what really happened. Even if the Gospels themselves happened to incorporate mythological elements it is ridiculous to criticize an artistic depiction of them simply because it is faithful to the original story. This is a bit like criticizing a movie about Homer's Odyssey because it includes fictional characters like Zeus and Athena, or because there is no archaeological support for some of the named cities. The real difference is that Christians actually believe their story to be historical truth and have committed their minds and hearts to it. And this leads to the next objection.

"The movie is anti-Semitic"

Regardless of what is personally believed, few of the critics are openly suggesting that the deity and resurrection of Jesus is a myth, and that this film is just an indulgence of Christian fantasy. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the negative depiction of the Jews. You see, this film dares to portray the willful, aggressive persecution of Jesus by the Jewish leadership. New York Times columnist Frank Rich called Gibson a "Jew baiter." And James Carroll of the Boston Globe went so far as to suggest that "even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred."

First, it should be understood that historical data is neither good nor bad, tolerant nor anti-Semitic; historical data is merely true or false. It is only the motivation, significance, or effect of the events themselves that can ultimately be judged. For example, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a book that carefully documents the events of World War II, but we can certainly say that many of the things recorded in that book were examples of bad behavior. If the New Testament reflects historical truth then it is not anti-Semitic, it is just fact. And believing or portraying actual history has seldom been seen as oppressive. Would anyone call a documentary of the holocaust anti-German, or the mini-series "Roots" anti-American? The real point of dispute, once again lurking beneath the surface of this issue, is in the rejection of the historical accuracy of the New Testament record.

So, where is it that they feel the Gospel authors have gone wrong in their story? Our Newsweek commentator would like for Gibson to have painted a picture of Jesus as more of a political insurgent - essentially off-loading the blame to the Roman authorities. He says that Mel could have improved his movie by "avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial." Essentially, the problem is that the Jewish leadership comes off looking bad in the Biblical version of the story. Now, it would be difficult to establish the context of the crucifixion without including some rationale behind the passionate opposition to Jesus, but what is the truth of the matter? Did the Sanhedrin bear any burden of responsibility for the condemnation of Jesus? The Gospel records are clear enough on this point, but let's hear what the official Jewish record has to say.

The Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 43a says, "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (the Nazarene) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.'" And the Talmud Tractate: Sanhedrin 107b states, "Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray."

The Jewish historians have painted themselves into a corner here. Besides the curious backdoor admission that Jesus was a worker of "magic," they have affirmed that the complaint against Jesus was a matter of theology, not politics. The Romans would have little concern for the internal issues of the Jewish religious leaders. If these things were to boil over into large-scale social unrest, the Roman governor might then be forced to take note.

There is certainly a danger of wrongly depicting the Romans as good guys. It is not that the Romans or their culture were saintly, but since the crimes were religious in nature it is only reasonable that the Jews should be the ones to bear the greatest animosity toward Jesus. Pilate's main concern was sedition. Once he discerned that Jesus was no political threat to the Roman rule, and that it was an internal Jewish matter, he began to question the whole affair and ultimately washed his hands of it, though it was consistent with his nature to permit an innocent man to be sent to his death.

Even granting the truth of the matter, the question could still be asked whether or not we should emphasize the culpability of the Jewish leadership. The suggestion is that this movie will stir up hatred for, and perhaps violence toward, the Jewish community. But, as every Christian should be aware, it is the corporate sin of humanity that is ultimately to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus, and God foreordained and Jesus assented to this remarkable remedy; this is no failed plan A.

Even so, who might we find to cast the blame upon in this present age? We can't pin it on the Jews as a race, since many of those in the early church were of Jewish blood, and Jesus himself was of Jewish origin. We can't pin it on any Jewish political structure, since the priestly class and the Sanhedrin have long since passed away. The only thing remaining is those who continue to reject Jesus as Messiah and Savior, but much of the world would qualify by this measure, and such were we once. It is not hatred that should be directed at unbelief but evangelism, yet even this is seen as a form of aggression and intolerance in today's society. The Passion of the Christ is far more likely to result in animosity toward Christians than it is toward Jews.

Ultimately, if true, there is no equitable way that such a story can be presented. It must either do violence to the presentation of the Gospel, or it must be an offense and stumbling block to the unbeliever. The issue of truth is what is really at stake, and that question can best be expressed in the words of Jesus himself when He asked, "Who do you say that I am?"

Related Articles: