"The Passion of the Christ" - A Review by William J Tsamis (reprint)

by William J. Tsamis - reprint from February 25, 2004

Chilling ..... Gripping ..... Spiritual ..... Timeless ..... Epic ..... Powerful ..... A True Artistic Triumph !!!

Since there has been much said on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" in the past six months or so, I personally did not intend on saying anything more about the film. However, after I saw the film today - i.e. on opening day (the very first showing), I felt compelled to offer some comments, especially since I have been promoting this film for the past two years. Personally, I feel qualified as a "creative artist" and as a seminary graduate in biblical studies, with a focus on Jesus studies, to make sound artistic and theological judgments. I have read the reviews of many film critics who, in my view, cannot give an adequate critique of this film because they have no understanding of theology, and I have read the reviews of many biblical scholars who cannot give a fair critique of this film because they tend to ignore the "artistic" emphasis in "film," as if what is supposed to be produced on screen is "perfect actual history," something which is impossible.

Thus, in order to grant "The Passion" a fair and just critique, one must have an excellent grasp of art (film, renaissance painting, music) in addition to a thorough knowledge of Christian theology (more specifically "Roman Catholic" theology), the Gospels, Christian mysticism, studies regarding the historical Jesus and first century Roman Judea. "The Passion" is Mel Gibson's "artistic" and "theological" interpretation of the arrest, trial, torture and crucifixion of Jesus. (Prior to the release of the film, Mel Gibson made this clear.) Now, to the film:

First things first: this day of cinema and contemplation has been one of the most profound days of my entire life, a day that I will never forget because it is "the" day when I was actually able to "see" what it cost God to purchase my soul by "the blood" of his Son (Acts 20:28). It will forever affect me in that it has awakened me to become a more sensitive Christian, husband, father, son, friend and citizen.

I had been following the production of this film for about two years and sharing my knowledge of the production with college students and others, keeping them apprised of prodution news as well as discussing the criticism from antagonistic groups who thought the film would be offensive, so I was very excited about seeing the film - finally the day came, February 25, 2004.

Anyway, when I arrived at the theater (the film was playing on three screens in this 20 screen cinema-plex), yet to my surprise, even though I showed up an hour early, the theater was 75% full - I found a prime spot nevertheless. Even though I am an avid film-goer, the last time I went to see a film on opening day was back in my high school days when my friends and I stood in the rain waiting for the doors to open to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark."

The first thing that surprised me about "The Passion" was this: the media and culture wars over this film prior to its release were far off the mark (in my view). For instance, there was no real anti-Semitism in the film unless one is to assume that Christianity and the Gospels are "anti-Semitic" (which is the real assumption of many Jews and many New Testament scholars - I would like to say there is a difference between "polemics" and "anti-Semitism," but that's for another day). Anyway, the ADL fear that someone like me would see "The Passion" and walk out of the theater as an avid anti-Semite was totally off the mark. Of course everybody sees what he or she wants to see, but personally, I saw many Jewish heroes of faith in this film - the faith of the common man (Simon of Cyrene, Malchus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, John, Peter, Veronica, et al.) Sure, the secret meetings of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the night (contrary to their own laws but necessary in this case) presented men who were antagonistic to Jesus of Nazareth. For those who know the Bible (i.e. the target audience of this film), there is no reason for an explanation regarding this antagonism. We all know the story from the Gospels. Nevertheless, the love and universal teachings of Christ come out in this film and Jesus is clear (from the Gospels) that ["No one takes his life, but he lays it down of his own accord. And if he lays it down of his own accord, he can take it up again"].

Simply put, Jesus was a self-proclaimed Messiah who threatened the religious establishment, and this was regarded as blasphemy and cause for death under the Jewish system, even though the Jews didn't have the power of execution (except in some cases). In the film, as well as in the Gospels, the religious leaders (especially Caiaphas) hand over Jesus to Pontius Pilate and cry out for his crucifixion, all the while prodding the mob to echo their will - but there is no collective guilt upon the Jewish people "of all ages" implied in this film - whether Roman or Jew, there are the guilty and there are the innocent. The "blood libel" charge from the Gospel of Matthew (27:25) was edited by Gibson (because of pressure); nevertheless, the text is there in the Gospels, famous rabbis such as Moses Maimonedes believed that the execution of Jesus was just - that he was a blasphemer and a false prophet.

Note the words of Maimonedes (1134-1204) which simply echo the Gospels and the rabbinical tradition about Jesus:

In Maimonodes's comments on the Torah in his "Letter to Yemen," he wrote, "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, was [rightfully] put to death by the court. [He] interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory (i.e. the Sanhedrin), became aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people [and they] meted out a fitting punishment to him."


Now according to efforts by the Roman Catholic Church in the years since Vatican II (1962-1965) there has been an effort to clear the Jews of any guilt regarding Jesus's crucifixion (for the improvement of interfaith dialogue); yet the Gospels are clear, preceding Maimonedes, that the Jews (Jewish leaders, Jewish mob, etc.) "did" in fact "hand over" Jesus of Nazareth to Pontius Pilate to be executed by crucifixion. Certainly any persecution against the Jews arising from this matter over the centuries is a "monstrous sin," and there is no doubt that a mighty punishment awaits those inquisitors and punishers who were not, in truth Christians, but pseudo-Christians who embraced prevailing ideas about Jews being "Christ-killers" along with other stereotypes.

Nevertheless, turning to logic, "if" Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a "blaphemer" and "false prophet," then according to Jewish law he should have been put to death. Why the attempt by Jewish groups to escape responsibility - apart from fears of retaliation and memories of the Holocaust. Why depart from blessed Maimonedes? Why depart from the condemnations in the "mish-mash" of references to "ben Stada," the "sorcerer who led Israel astray" (the Talmud). For instance, see this entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding Jesus and note how it "unashamedly" places the blame on the Jews:

Jewish Encyclopedia - Jesus's Crucifixion

Again, apart from fears of another Holocaust (which did not occur because of "Christian anti-Semitism" but because of many other streams of corrupt thought that took root in the mind of Adolf Hitler), why must Jewish groups feel the need to stray from their true belief about Jesus that he was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet? Forget the interfaith "ecumenical correctness" - if Jesus was a "blasphemer" and "false prophet," say it and praise the high priests of the Sanhedrin (like Caiaphas), even as Maimonedes did, and take pride in the fact that the Jewish leadership 2,000 years ago righteously rooted out this Galilean heretic from among the fold. This, I don't understand. Even Alfred Edersheim comments here extensively, the thrust of his argument being If He had been what Israel said, He deserved the death of the Cross; if He is what the Christmas-bells of the Church, and the chimes of the Resurrection-morning ring out, then do we rightly worship Him as the Son of the Living God, the Christ, the Saviour of men (V.13).

But this is "not" happening is it? Why? Because to these Jewish groups it is prudent to abandon (at least in public) what they truly believe and to establish good relations with the Vatican, for instance. To me this is cowardly and devious; thus, it is much easier to attack Mel Gibson and his father. If you really want to know what the Jewish attitudes are regarding "The Passion of the Christ," look to the newspapers in Israel and they will greatly enlighten you.

Here, though, allow me to talk a bit about my feelings (without disclosing too many facts from the film):

First, the kind of anti-Semitism that the ADL was warning us about in this film was negligible to me. I looked for it and I didn't see it. However, this doesn't mean that other viewers would fail to find it if "they" were looking for it. But examples that some Jewish magazines have put forward - e.g. Gibson stereotypes the Jews by portraying them with "hooked noses," etc. is in my view ridiculous. "What's wrong with a hooked nose?" In the film, Peter has a hooked nose. So what!

Second, I thought the Romans were depicted as a bit out of control, but nevertheless well for the artistic purpose of painting them as "brutal sadists who were instruments of the devil's cruelty." Their ignorance of "who" Jesus was, however, was quite consistent with Scripture - i.e. "just another Jew, another criminal to be executed." Historically they were Syrian conscripts in the outpost of Judea in which Pontius Pilate was prefect. As Syrian conscripts perhaps we could expect them to have been undisciplined and ill-tempered compared to the Roman legions who were battle trained -thus, in "The Passion" we see the utter brutality of these Roman soldiers. Only those soldiers immediately surrounding Pilate were from the Roman guard - i.e. professional troops. The "torturers," who are sometimes filmed from the ground up so they look like giants are depitcted by Gibson as the "instruments of Satan" inflicting their cruelty upon our Lord. Indeed, Satan is "the adversary" in this story, so everyone who is part of the execution of Jesus, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. those crying out for Barabbas, led by Caiaphas in this film even though that was an artistic decision made by Gibson), is simply part of the cosmic struggle between good and evil - God versus Satan - and that struggle is being played out definitively in "The Passion." All of this, i.e. the Isaiah 53 text (part of which is shown on the screen at the beginning of the film) is very biblical. And whether some Third Quest historians like it or not the "beating," "punching," "spitting" and "mocking" is all part of the biblical story and the "theology of rejection." (This "beating" begins in the court of Caiaphas by Temple guards and others and then continues when the Romans take the prisoner Jesus into the scourging ground. The passion (suffering) of Jesus in this film simply reflects what the Bible and traditional Christian theology have taught regarding the "Suffering Servant."

Third, the violence was barbaric indeed. Nevertheless, as I have indicated in my article on "The Crucifixion of Jesus" below, Gibson accurately brought to life not only the intense beating and scourging of Jesus, but the "way to the cross" and the crucifixion of Jesus with unparalleled accuracy (see medical article from JAMA below), apart from some theological and artistic impostions (carrying the whole cross, nails in the palms) which were minor, but necessary to reflect the "Roman Catholic" traditional motif of the passion. Frederica Matthews-Green and others have criticized Gibson here because the Gospel accounts actually don't overtly discuss the "blood and gore." But to Frederica Matthews-Green and others I counter by saying that in the first century people were well aware of the practice of crucifixion. In Palestine there was hardly a road you could walk without seeing, smelling, and hearing the brutalities of crucifixion. It is for this reason that the Gospel writers didn't feel it necessary to explain that which was perfectly understood by everyone who lived in that milieu.

Fourth, I disagree with those who claim that Pontius Pilate was not depicted as a "brutal" governor, as history bears out (Philo, Josephus). At the time of Jesus's crucifixion, Pontius Pilate had been reprimanded by Tiberius Caesar and Vitellus (the Syrian Legate i.e. Pilate's superior) two or three times already, once for bringing in standards bearing the image of Caesar into Jerusalem, once for the gratuitous slaughter of hundreds of Jews, and another time for taking money out of the Temple treasury to pay for an aqueduct. Certainly, Pontius Pilate was a brutal prefect, no friend to the Jews, and he was even recalled by Vitellus (and probably Tiberius Caesar A.D. 36 because of these reasons, although the latter died before Pilate reached Rome; however, his barbarism is "not" part of the Passion Narrative, apart from the scourging which was common. Many scholars believe that Pilate, a hater of the Jews, but one who "found no fault in Jesus," ordered Jesus to be excessively scourged in order to satiate the mob's thirst for Jesus's blood during the Paschal Release drama ("Behold the Man") - in other words, "Isn't that enough?" However, when Caiaphas roars to Pilate, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12), there is an implicit threat that Pilate's position is on the line if he doesn't punish a man who claims to be "King of the Jews." In other words, "Isn't Caesar king of the Jews"? Although this is a blasphemy on the part of Caiaphas (only God and his Messiah can be King of Israel), Pilate must capitulate if he is to retain his position. In my view, the belief that Joseph ben Caiaphas (High Priest in Jerusalem since A.D. 19) and nephew of Annas (who produced five high priests in Jerusalem, presiding over Herod's Temple) - that Caiaphas shuddered in the shadow of Pilate who had been appointed prefect in A.D. 26 is hard to believe. There was a collision of power in Jerusalem, make no mistake about it, and according to the Gospels the Jews (Jewish leadership) made this charge against Jesus, that he "claimed to be king of the Jews," unacceptable to the Sanhedrin and unacceptable to Caesar (both Caiaphas and Pilate knew it). That this account has multiple attestation is demonstrated by the placard that was placed above Jesus's head on the cross.

Finally, I noticed that Gibson's representation of "the apostles" was similar to many of the earlier icons of the apostles that I've seen (short hair). In fact, this is the first "Jesus film" that I've seen where the actors actually resemble such icons which populate different Eastern Orthodox churches where iconography is an ancient tradition, rather than the hippi-ish look of other films. I found this corrective quite refreshing and realistic. Moreover, the actors in this film were not "famous" (at least in the United States), so there are no preconceived notions about who they were or who they would become. Character authenticity was not blinded by associating the actors with other film (except for Jim Caviezel and Monica Bellucci). All the other actors were foreign.

And what can I say about John Debney's film score? It is perfect !!! Not too overbearing, melodic though with an ancient feel. Unlike "Ride of the Valkyries" or something like that, Debney's work really can't be separated from the film so interwoven is his work with the images on the screen.

In closing, let me say that this film is only about 2 hours and 15 minutes, so it was impossible for Gibson to "pack it all in," if you will. Thus, there are some conflations and harmonizations, and the artistic license Gibson pursues includes only "possible" events - his extrabiblical notions make perfect sense OR they are theological impositions, e.g. the appearance of Mary and Mary Magdalene wearing habits like nuns (somewhat) - this is Roman Catholic theology, live with it. I found much of this material simply the expression of genius. At the same time I can hear Bible students and scholars saying, "Well, that's not how it happened." Of course! This is a film! It is a wonderful artistic film which pays close attention to the Gospels while at the same time blending accounts and rescending others in order to unify the film. For instance, Mary Magdelene, of whom it is written was "exorcised of seven demons," plays the role of a former "prostitute" as well (a strong Roman Catholic tradition) - but Gibson puts her in John 8, i.e. in the story of the adulteress who is to be stoned according to the "law of Moses" - the stones drop one by one as Jesus reaches down and grabs her hand. Or in another case, at the foot of the cross we only see Mary, Mary Magdalene, and John. "His mother's sister" and "Mary the wife of Clopas" (John 19:25) are not present. And what about Pontius Pilate and Jesus speaking "Latin" - Pilate spoke Greek, I can hear the biblical scholars already complaining. Well, I am Greek, and Greek is not a dead language. The "artistic" point of using both "Aramaic" and "Latin" (dead languages) was to try and put the entire audience (including Greeks) into antiquity. Secondly, Gibson adheres to the Latin Mass, so once again there is a Roman Catholic imposition, but a good one! Jesus is shown carrying the "whole" cross instead of just the "crossbeam" - this is done for the sake of the "stations" of the cross. Live with it! If you can't watch this film from the perspective of Mel Gibson's artistic vision, then you won't get it.

Again let me emphasize, there are many "minor" conflations and rescensions that are present in the film, but NONE that distract one from the Passion Narratives of the Gospels. Indeed, Gibson uses his brilliant sanctified imagination to provide details that "fill in" many of the blanks and "put you right there" (e.g. the chilling character of the Devil, the tale of Judas, and so on). Is the film a "moving Carravaggio" in the way that Mel Gibson wanted? Very much so! It is beautifully filmed, tight and "in your face," almost like a play (a "passion play"). Is the film a "spiritual experience" in the way that Mel Gibson hoped? Absolutely!!!

The film is amazing ..... I was speechless and stunned as if I had been brought back in time to the most important event in human history. I will forever applaud Mel Gibson for creating an epic of such beauty about Jesus, my Lord and my God, every frame being a renaissance painting and a message to my spirit.

"The Passion of the Christ" is not simply a film; it is a gift to all Christians, a piece of art on par with Michaelangelo, Bach, Handel, and other great artists who have provided Christianity and culture with a timeless masterpieces that transcend their era and live on forever. See it ..... believe it .....