Yep, I haven’t seen the movie, and after all I’ve read about it I don’t really want to (having even managed to escape LOTR I and II). But I think this article gets it about right.
I saw it, and thought it was excellent (not going to be to everybody’s taste, but that’s true of just about any movie)…but I can’t access the article, so I have no idea what it says (for some reason, it’s refusing my connection). Anybody care to sum it up for me?
Redwolf
Intro and some extracts:
Its alleged anti-semitism isn’t the only problem with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. There’s also the small matter of it being in Aramaic. To help enrich your enjoyment, here is a handy glossary of useful terms
B-kheeruut re’yaaneyh laa kaaley tsuuraathaa khteepaathaa, ellaa Zaynaa Mqatlaanaa Trayaanaa laytaw!
It may be uncompromising in its liberal use of graphic violence, but Lethal Weapon II it ain’t.Da’ek teleyfoon methta’naanaak, pquud. Guudaapaw!
Please turn off your mobile phone. It is blasphemous.Shbuuq shuukhaaraa deel. Man ethnaggad udamshaa?
Sorry I’m late. Have I missed any scourging?Aykaa beyt tadkeetha? Zaadeq lee d-asheeg eeday men perdey devshaanaayey haaleyn!
Where is the loo? I need to wash my hands of this popcorn.Een, Yuudaayaa naa, ellaa b-haw yawmaa laa hweeth ba-mdeetaa.
Yes, I’m Jewish, but I wasn’t there that day.Demketh! Udamaa lemath mtaynan b-tash’eetha d-khashey?
I fell asleep! What station of the cross are we up to?Ma’hed lee qalleel d-Khayey d-Breeyaan, ellaa dlaa gukhkaa.
It sort of reminds me of Life of Brian, but it’s nowhere near as funny.Ktaabaa taab hwaa meneyh.
It’s not as good as the book.Puuee men Preeshey, puuee!
Boo, Pharisees! Boo!
ABC. Just remember. In popular culture and discourse, Anything But Christianity. At my son’s school (Albany, CA right next to Berkeley), a kid was being hazed for being part of a cult. He is Catholic. “Tolerance for diversity”, my @#$. If he was a wiccan, the authorities would be all over it.
Such bizarre times. Contrast the media controversies: dust-up over the movie, dust-up over Janet Jackson/Howard Stern, and gay weddings. Schizophrenia at new high, I swear.
My daughter gets that too. I wonder if it’s a California thing, as I sure don’t remember it in North Carolina!
Funny article. 
There was a similar cartoon in Newsweek this week…I wonder if it’s from the same source?
I sure didn’t see the movie as anti-semitic. There were a whole bunch of jerks (some Jewish, some Roman), a couple of good guys (mostly Jewish, a couple Romans. The “good” Romans might actually best be described as “not-quite-as-bad-as-the-really awful-Romans,” since most of their “goodness” seemed to consist of looking scared) and a lot of horrified bystanders. No Christians, of course…the concept hadn’t been invented yet (Jesus’s followers were all Jewish – and the only ones remaining after the first 40 minutes or so were John, the BVM and Mary Magdalene). By far and away the most brutal, evil people portrayed were the Roman guards who did the whipping…they clearly enjoyed their work. The most compassionate people were several of the Jewish bystanders, who cried out to the guards to stop brutalizing Jesus and, in some cases, tried to intervene.
My only real gripe was that there wasn’t a lot of context. Sure, I knew what was going on, but then I’m intimately connected with the story. It’s somewhat jarring to see only The Passion with only brief flashbacks events of Holy Week…Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, The Last Supper, etc. For a non-Christian, it must be like walking the Stations of the Cross without really knowing why.
Redwolf
This was the complaint I heard raised by a protestor, that there was no context. The allegation of anti-Semitism was being held that this film could fuel anti-Semitic feelings (which, as Mel Gibson himself pointed out, anti-Semitism is a sin for Christians), in that it gave no context for why they (the Sadducees and the Romans, I presume) were angry with Him.
Another viewer has stated that the violence was over-done. That Christ would have been dead several times over, by the time He reached Calvary, had it been so.
I hold that Christ’s life, which He gave freely, as a sacrifice, was the ultimate expression of love. That said, I have not seen this film, nor do I have any immediate plans to see it.
Having sat through twelve dreary years of religious indoctrination (I obviously survived) I want nothing to do with this movie, especially nothing having to do with spending my own money to be indoctrinated. I’ve also been avoiding threads about it, here an elsewhere because I wanted neither the acrimony nor the believers’ rah-rah. I don’t know why I opened this one, but thanks for posting the link. I’m still chorttling over it.
How is it that there are words for “phone” and “popcorn” in Aramaic?
People still speak Aramaic, so they need to be able to say “popcorn” and “cell phone” and whatnot.
I think the movie is better without context. It would be interesting to hear what folks who don’t know the story think of it, and to see if they understand what’s going on.
I have seen it myself, and thought the use of Aramaic (and some Hebrew) and Latin was quite effective. I wonder, though, if the audience can appreciate some of the subtlety: when Pilate is talking to Christ, and asks him if he’s a King in Aramaic (key word: king – “melek”), Christ responds in Latin (key word: king – “rex”). I’m not sure how obvious it is if you’re not a linguist, 
, but it was very effective.
The movie made me never want to eat another piece of pizza, though; the Romans were DOGS! And COME now, folks. It’s not like the Sanhedrin were the poster-priests of Judea, now were they?
Stuart
I’m not planning to see this flick, 'cause I already read the book and know the ending.
Me, too. I guess I’ve been “indoctrinated”, as though I had no choice in the matter. :roll: It’s a decision I would gladly make again.
Speaking of the lighter side:
“Jesus demands creative control over next movie”
I want to see the movie, but I’m going to wait for the DVD so I can watch it in the privacy of my own feelings.
It was Paul the Apostle who was responsible for starting all this hateful antisemitism. See 1Thes. 2:14,15. Of course, he wasn’t actually there at the crucifixion, he got his information second hand. But I’m sure he’d be thrilled with Gibson’s movie along with all it’s implication.
Well Stuart thought it would be interesting to hear from someone who doesn’t know the context. That would be me more or less. I was raised Buddhist and grew up living in a Jewish neighborhood in Chicago (safer and more tolerant my father felt). Anyway, growing up I had minimal contact with Christians and I’ve never read the Bible. Over the years of coarse I’ve heard the gist of the Jesus story, usually told fervently by someone trying to convert me, so I did know the plot.
The whole premis always seemed very odd to me… probably very metaphorical (we Buddhists are big on metaphores, particularly oblique ones). However, I’ve come to understand that for a Christian these events are not metaphorical, but literal… so I get puzzled again. Now understand that this isn’t a burning question for me, just idle curiosity, so I haven’t attempted to delve into the intracacies of Christian theology - I’ve already got my hands full trying to be a good Buddhist. So I went to see the movie with a Christian friend who thought it would clear things up for me. Well, the story is straight forward enough (although there were lots of small references that I didn’t get that are obviously for the insider), but the theological underpinnings were assumed to be already known. This is clearly an insiders movie. I’m still puzzled - just more violently.
Clark
Respectfully, you’ve come to misunderstand or, more accurately, to generalize unfairly, but entirely understandably. My brother and sister Christians who are biblical fundamentalists tend to get most of the press).
I am a professed & practicing Christian (practicing anything tends to help you gradually get better at it), with a degree in theology. I do not take these events as either literal or metaphorical, and this would be true of many, if not most, Christians. At least those who bother to think about it.
My opinion, shared by many, is that both in the Passion accounts, and even more in much of the rest of the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, there lies a mixture of history (often, as is true of the Passion accounts, about as accurate as we can hope to get regarding ancient events), and non-literal truth. Non-literal in the sense that it would not have necessarily been recorded on videotape as described. Truth in the sense that the stories are divinely-inspired, human-authored texts designed to convey a message of real importance.
Having said that, you would be entirely right in understanding that there are large numbers of Christians who indeed believe in the absolute spiritual AND historical/scientific accuracy of the scriptures.
And having said that, and now being dangerously close to shutting up, I would add the probably obvious point that you would have to be a lunatic to profess that Mel Gibson got the historical events literally correct. Last time I checked, Mel is not to be regarded as a channel of divine inspiration. (The exception to this being, of course, Lethal Weapon III.)
Dale
St. Paul WAS a Semite. From his own words, "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. "
Gibson was entitled to his project, which was not to
tell the whole story but to focus on the passion.
Also he was entitled to suppose that most of
the folks who saw the film would know the
context, as most people in this hemisphere do.
No need to start in the manger.
Clark, if you’re wanting Christian theology,
you might do a search here; we’ve covered
it in some depth on several occasions.
Some of us have degrees in theology,
in fact. Of course reading the Gospels
is the best thing to do.
Best
Having said that, you would be entirely right in understanding that there are large numbers of Christians who indeed believe in the absolute spiritual AND historical/scientific accuracy of the scriptures.
Yes, most of the Christian philosophers I know think it
could have been captured on videotape, including
the resurrection.
I agree, and I say that with no motive to try to convert anyone. (I’m a truly lousy and unmotivated evangelist.) But Christians and non-Christians largely agree, the Gospels, flawed as historical documents as they are (IMHO), are the best historical sources we have on the life of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar’s et al.'s views to the contrary notwithstanding.