James D. Tabor, Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, writes:
One important point that needs to be carefully noted: the title of the film is “The Passion of the Christ,” and not “The Death of Jesus of Nazareth.” There is a big difference. Rudolf Bultmann ... argued that we must carefully distinguish between what he termed the “Christ of Faith” and the “Jesus of History.” Our Gospels on the whole, particularly John and Matthew, focus on the “Christ of faith,” not the Jesus of history. This does not mean that they contain no history. But it does mean that they are best understood, and thus read, as theological presentations of faith, not historical documentaries. Accordingly, anyone who makes a film based primarily on the Gospels will likely end up taking some of the same directions that Gibson took. Gibson is not only a strong Roman Catholic believer, he is part of a right-wing break away Catholic sect that sees the reforms of Vatican II as heresy and considers even the present very conservative Pope to be “liberal” in that regard. This has to be considered in any attempt to understand or evaluate how Mel Gibson ended up making the film he did. He has been quite open about this in all his interviews.
Tabor also brings up an interesting problem in the film which I don't remember seeing discussed - namely, how the two thieves are portrayed:
Jesus carried this unbelievably huge full cross, just like in all the traditional paintings, and at times that part of the film bordered on the ridiculous. This portrait, however appealing to tradition, is unsupported in either the Gospels (Greek word stauros means stake) or what we know of Roman history. It is worth noting that the two “thieves,’ crucified with Jesus, as this film portrayed things, had only to carry the “cross beam” to which the arms would be tied or nailed, not the entire cross. This would be in keeping with Roman practice, so why have Jesus bend and break for nearly 30 minutes of the film, carrying a “cross” that surely would have weighed over 100 lbs. Here, as in other places, presumably Gibson read his English Bible where the term “cross” is used, and guided by Sister Emmerich’s visions and Church tradition, decided that this was the way things were.
[E]ven though Jesus' brutal suffering were portrayed with realism, I noticed that the two “thieves” who were crucified with him hardly looked like they were suffering at all—yet scourging and beating was common for all the victims, and anyone crucified would be in such screaming excruciating pain any of us would have difficulty watching. One had the impression that the important suffering, the only one who really suffered, was Jesus, even though we know that tens of thousands of other Jews died this same brutal death during the very lifetime of Jesus
Why did Jesus carry the full cross when the thieves didn't? Why is Jesus portrayed as suffering so much when the thieves, who must have endured the same punishment, aren't suffering much at all? Naturally the point of Gibson's theology is the suffering and death of Jesus, a theological perspective not shared by others, but we must also remember that Gibson and his defenders have consistently argued that this film is more historically accurate than any others.
Obviously, though, Gibson was quite willing to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of making a theological point or two: Jesus carried the full cross in order to conform to tradition and Jesus is the only one portrayed as suffering because only his suffering matters. Christians who watch the film really should ask themselves what other compromises and alterations Gibson made in order to convey this theological beliefs. Christians should also try to establish a little critical distances between themselves and the movie in order to avoid adopting Gibson's beliefs without realizing it.
Sadly, I rather doubt that many will do either of those things - this isn't a movie for them, it's a religious experience like the old-fashioned tent revivals that travelled the countryside. You don't create critical distance between yourself and the Voice of God, which is what Gibson is becoming for some Christians in America. It just a shame that as American Christians fashion for themselves a new golden calf to worship, they couldn't have picked a slightly better one.
Read More: