In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

76 Where Is the History in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ? S. Scott Bartchy Why has this film, which is claimed by many to be the most historically reliable presentation ever made in a movie about Jesus of Nazareth, become so controversial , so potentially dangerous in arousing anti-Jewish sentiment, and in my judgment such a betrayal of the memory of the historical Jesus? More than twenty feature-length commercial films have dealt with the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, beginning in 1898 with Alice Guy’s French film, Jesus devant Pilate. Among the best known that followed are Cecil B. DeMille ’s The King of Kings (1927), George Stevens’s The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Pier Paolo Pasolini’s The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1966), Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth (1977), and then Martin Scorsese’s very controversial The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), based on the novel by Nicos Kazantzakis—a film that told us about Scorsese’s sexual fantasies rather than anything about those of the historical Jesus. 1 These films have portrayed Jesus through widely diverse characterizations, ranging from that of a dreamy-eyed utopian to a self-doubting revolutionary, with many intermediate images. They have ranged from the solemnly reverent to the wonderfully satiric Life of Brian by the Monty Python group, from musical to grand epic. Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ outdoes them all with its stunning aesthetic values and amazing applications of cinematic technology. Has, then, Mel Gibson improved on the efforts of previous writers and directors who have made Jesus of Nazareth the subject of their movies? Has he made the most biblically accurate presentation of Jesus’ last hours in Jerusalem ever filmed, as he has repeatedly claimed? For example, Gibson has stated: “I think that my first duty is to be as faithful as possible in telling the story so that it doesn’t contradict the Scriptures.” 2 And in an interview with Raymond Arroyo broadcast by the Eternal Word Television Network on January 23, 2004, Gibson asked rhetorically about the difference between the biblical Jesus and the Where Is the History? 77 historical Jesus, “Please, tell me what’s the difference? John was an eyewitness— is that not history? Matthew was there—is that not history?” Although Gibson has said that this film “is not meant as a historical documentary,” 3 from the very first frame he encourages his viewers to think that this will be the most historically accurate film ever made about Jesus, a perception emphasized by his use of Aramaic and Latin, with American English subtitles for most of the dialogue. Thus it cannot be surprising that the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, has commented : “This film is probably the most accurate film historically—more than anything that’s ever been made in the English world. . . . We were watching it for biblical accuracy, and we thought it was as close as you can get.” 4 This film is undoubtedly the most ambitious and most commercially successful exploitation of the Christian Scriptures to date. It has become a major cultural event. So what’s there not to like? Plenty! Gibson’s claim for the accuracy of this film inevitably raises the question: Where’s the history here? To answer this question I comment in this essay on Gibson’s presentation of • a complete absence of context for understanding what happens to Jesus in this film • a very limited respect for historical research • his reliance on medieval speculations and nineteenth-century visions • the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate and his wife • the Jewish leaders, in particular Caiaphas and Herod Antipas • Mary, Jesus’ mother • his severely truncated presentation of the historical Jesus’ radical actions and his total ignoring of Jesus’ prophetic social critique. Crucifixion Before going into those details, it may be helpful for me to make some preliminary comments about the manner of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth—crucifixion. In our attempts as post-Enlightenment, analytical historians to sort out the facts from faith’s interpretations of the facts, and both facts and faith from fantasies of many kinds, there is no more secure fact in the case of Jesus of Nazareth than the statement that this Jesus was tortured and executed by crucifixion at the order of the then-authorized provincial representative of the Roman Empire. The Romans had dominated and exploited the Land of Israel as the humiliated province they called Palestine for...

Share