Gibson is claiming it is true to the Gospels when he is actually rewriting them. No, no, no. The last the time the Gospels were rewritten were in the second half of the second century. BTW, the Synoptic Gospels are not in complete agreement on the passion story. Thus, there does not exist one true source. I for one plan on never seeing this movie.
What do you mean by this? If you mean that the copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and/or John we have today don't contain what was originally written, could you give us a little proof of this? (Please don't say Q.) Certainly there should be manuscript evidence or something to bolster such a matter-of-fact statement. I've never noticed that the gospel aren't in "compete agreement on the passion story" -- unless you mean they don't use the same language verbatim. But I can't imagine anyone expecting them to do that. Could you fill us in on the differences?
Anyone care to guess how much the movie is going to earn? I'm guessing $50-60 mil domestic, $150 million worldwide. according to imdb the budget was $25 million. they haven't had to spend much on advertising since the networks and news programs are doing such a good job of giving it free publicity.
"This is my version of what happened, according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show — the aspects of it I wanted to show." - Mel Gibson "I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So that they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice; to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule." - Mel Gibson Sorry for this, everyone, but my first post was by accident and the system won't let me delete or edit it. Any help would be appreciated. I respectfully disagree with anyone accusing Mel Gibson of rewriting the Gospels. From a Christian perspective, all Scripture is "God-breathed." God could have inspired the Gospel writers to include more about Christ's suffering, but He chose not to. I think it's a testament to Christ's humility that the Gospels do not provide great detail about the effects of the scourging and crucifixion he endured; but Christ's suffering is not a minor point in the overall message. His willingness to endure suffering to that extreme demonstrates the depth of God's love. I don't think it's wrong for Gibson to show extreme violence in The Passion of the Christ in order to communicate "the enormity of that sacrifice." And I think it's unfair to say that Gibson is rewriting the Gospels just because the film includes details that are not explicit in the Bible. Regarding the depiction of Christ's suffering, Gibson should be allowed to make reasonable inferences based on the Gospel accounts. According to the Gospels, Jesus was flogged. He had a crown of thorns placed on his head. He was mocked. He was spit on. He was hit on the head with a staff again and again. He was struck in the face. He was beaten. He was forced to carry his own cross. He was crucified. Any cinematic depiction of those events that aims at realism will necessarily include a lot of violence and a lot of blood. I don't think you can make a realistic film that focuses on the suffering, or the passion, of Christ without depicting extreme and shocking violence, because the real scourging and crucifixion of a human being would be shocking to witness. And still, a mere film — no matter how violent — could never completely convey the suffering that Christ endured. To think that he was God incarnate, and that he willingly endured that suffering as a sacrifice for our sins, is profoundly humbling for any Christian.
The last twelve versus of Mark are apocryphal. Some extant copies of Mark do not have them. Some do. I will leave it to you to decide whether how important theologically and ideologically these twelve versus are. BTW are you suggesting that four people sat down and wrote their own Gospels? and when they were done the Gospels were complete and thus handed down to us intact 2000 years later?
those differences are minor at best in even the Gospels that "don't make the cut." while i write this, i'm looking at the Gospel of Peter, which of course is among those that didn't "make the cut"... this is clearly the crucifixion story i know from reading the New Testament accounts. suffering...humiliation...crown of thorns, the drink of vinegar, casting lots for his garments, "king of israel" inscribed on the cross, Pilate "washing his hands", darkness at the noon hour, "thou hast forsaken me", the vail of the temple torn in 2, quaking of the earth. This is the story I know. And as much as people want to make out how differently Christ is presented...or how differently the story is told..the differences are tiny, at best. they are the result of a story told through the eyes of different people years later, and to me, add a ton of credibility to the veracity of the story, itself. so whether mel chose to make a movie about the crucifixion as told by the Gospel of Peter (which isn't in the Bible) or the Gospel of Matthew, the story is remarkably the same. If we had only one Gospel account to read from, we would know just as much about the core importance of the story as we would with all the accounts of that we do have. Curiously, there is more on Pilate in the Gospel of Peter than in the Gospels of the New Testament. I mean, if you were going to try to paint the distorted view that Pilate comes across as some sort of innocent good guy, the Gospel of Peter would be a good place to start. After the resurrection, in Peter's account, Pilate acknowledges that Jesus was the Son of God...that he must have been! He says, "Hey..I'm pure of all this..I didn't kill him..that wasn't my call." But then he tells his centurions and soldiers not to tell anyone what they had seen while guarding the tomb (resurrection story) because it's better for us to be guilty of that then have the temple leaders who were established by Rome to fall in to the hands of the people of the Jews and be stoned. Just as they've tried to twist the Gospel accounts into some back-patting for Pilate, someone could do the same here. But again we're presented with a picture of a man who, if the accounts are to be believed, found no fault in Jesus...BUT CONDEMNED HIM TO DIE ANYWAY! How anyone can explain away Pilate as some sort of tragic hero figure is beyond me. He is, at best, a worm of a man from these accounts.
I'm not saying that...but I am saying that the earliest extant copies we have of New Testament writings come from the 1st century and they read nearly verbatim to the text in my NIV Bible today.
"Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me in this film. They have a problem with the four Gospels. That's where their problem is." - Mel Gibson Sounds pretty presumptuous to me. Mel knows it all. The gospels were written the way they were intentionally. Accounts were left out and even embellished to get the point across. There is more to telling a story then just fact reporting. The gospels were not a news account. There was an exact agenda behind them.
of course...and i recognize that the translations don't always allow for the fullest meaning of the original text. we use one word to describe love...the Greeks used 3 or 4 different words to characterize it. i say i love my dad...and i say i love my wife...obviously that doesn't mean the exact same thing. but, nevertheless, the idea is still communicated.
Meowgi -- ok...let me understand you better, because i'm hearing conflicting concerns with this film now...and frankly, a lot of it sounds like complaining just to complain. the criticism of mel from the ADL and others has been his attempts at literalism...to literally interpret the Gospel accounts of the passion of Christ. the argument is that the gospel accounts themselves are inaccurate...that they don't comport with what we know of Pilate. in particular, the ADL has been concerned with statements attributed to Caiphas, the high priest, which were in the Gospels. those concerned have said that the comments attributed to him by the Gospel writers have caused many to twist the text around to justify condemning all Jews and led to horrible things like the holocaust. so the criticism from that perspective is, without question, of the literal text. which means mel is entirely correct when he says the problem they have is with the way the story is recorded in the Gospel accounts. so i'm not understanding your concerns. he has adapted a written version of this story for the screen, trying to stay true to the written text. for that he has taken heat. you're giving him heat saying he's added stuff to the story....which is it???
When you a story, a lot is in not what you say, but how you say it. When he chooses to emphasize certain aspects of the gospels, he is changing the intent of the original story. He is changing the objective. How is that true to the Gospels? The Last Temptation of Christ was prefacing by saying it is not based on the Gospels and people freaked out. Mel claims his is true to the gospels, and now people can not dare be critical? Personally, I think focusing on the suffering can lead to thoughts of blame. It is wrong-minded, unnecessary, and just misses the whole point.
JV and I just saw The Passion last night. There's a lot to be said about the movie but before people bash it as anti-Semetic they need to see it. Gibson took great pains to make it as pro-Jewish as possible. Yes, there are many other Jewish people who mourn the death of Christ than just Mary, Mary Magdelaine and the apostles. What surprised me was that it does not follow the Bible as closely as I thought it would. Scenes are added that involve Jesus and his mother that are not in the gospels. This is certainly an explication of the text rather than a visual translation of the text. He also does a lot of flash backs to other Biblical passages in order to explain and interpret the crucifixion. Mary plays a much larger role than I, as a protestant, would usually consider. And Satan and demons are depicted as well. Mr. Meowgi, from a Christian perspective all of history centers on the cross. To relegate the death of Christ to a minor subpoint of the gospels is to miss the point of the gospels entirely. Why do I say this? Because Jesus' death on the cross provides the only bridge between God and Man. The movie makes this point abundantly clear. It does not focus on the crucifiction so that people can say, "Oh, how awful of the Jews to do that to Christ." Apparently it is Mel Gibson's own hand that is seen nailing Jesus to the cross. The point is that it is our own sin that required all of this.
ok..fair enough. your criticism then is very different from what we're hearing from the ADL and others. i would argue that he isn't emphasizing anything...he's telling a story and when you put it in pictures, crucifixion emphasizes itself, if you're trying to be accurate. no one is saying that you can't be critical...but if you're critical along the lines of the ADL, specifically because you disagree with the inclusion of certain quotations that come directly from the text, then esssentially your concern is with the text, itself, and not the man who 2000 years later puts it to film.
We saw it at the Edwards on I-10 in a private showing put on by Impact Houston. So we didn't get to see any previews.
I don't really know how you can portray what happened without including the suffering. Let me ask you a question: What do you think the people saw who witnessed this originally? It seems to me that Gibson, at least in part, was trying to capture this aspect of things. I don't think this film incites hatred of Jews anymore than Blackhawk Down incited hatred of Muslims or Saving Private Ryan incited hatred of Germans. I don't seem to remember quite the uproar when they were released. The problem must lie elsewhere. I think MadMax is right about some people complaining for the sake of complaining.
Mrs. Valdez, Please understand one point. If you've seen the movie, you're not qualified to post in this thread. Thank you for understanding.
