By Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer
First among the passionate disagreements stirred by "The Passion of the Christ" is the film's depiction
of Jews.
But close behind are the related matters of whether the New Testament accounts are faithful to the actual events
surrounding Jesus' crucifixion, and whether screenwriter-director Mel Gibson is faithful to what the New Testament
records.
Some Jews and liberal Christians who criticize "Passion" contend the four Gospels are unreliable, especially
regarding
Jewish involvement. Such thinking (not in response to the film) is found in "The Crucifixion of Jesus: History,
Myth,
Faith" by the Rev. Gerard Sloyan, a Roman Catholic with a Protestant publisher, the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America's Fortress Press. [Comment: definitely a neo-Marcionite]
Such attacks undoubtedly added to the enthusiasm with which conservative Christians are boosting the movie's stupen-
dous box-office totals.
Other critics accept the scriptural version and accuse Gibson of distorting it. An outspoken example is columnist
Charles
Krauthammer, who charged that "Gibson deviates from the Gospels — glorying in his artistic vision — time and
time again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up, usually in ways that enhance the villainy and culpability
of the Jews."
[Comment: Krauthammer's prejudiced, myopic vision distorts what he knows about the Bible, which doesn't
go into detail about the Passion of Christ]
But "Passion" defenders, including Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls and numerous evangelical Protestants,
deny there's anti-Semitism and say Gibson stuck closely to the Gospels.
Amid all this tumult, one of the more intriguing conservative voices is that of James Wicker, a New Testament professor
at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Writing in Baptist Press about "Passion,"
he said "much
of it is right on target" and listed 21examples of how the film "accurately followed numerous Gospel
details." Yet even a fan such as Wicker had some nits to pick, showing how literal folks can be when it comes
to Scripture.
He grouped examples of problems under three categories:
[Comment: there wouldn't be any problem if Wicker didn't rely too much on his biblical exegesis]
1 "Unbiblical points" that are "contrary to what the Bible says":
" The Gospels never identify Mary Magdalene as the reformed prostitute (Luke 7:36-50) or the woman caught
in adultery John 7:53-8:11). [Comment: not so according to Tradition]
• Jesus didn't say, "Behold, I make all things new" before his crucifixion. The saying comes from the
heavenly Jesus in
Revelation 21:5. Other words of Jesus are also misplaced.
[Comment: The Bible is silent what Jesus said or didn't say on the Via Crucis. What does Wicker know?]
• The disciples weren't seated at the Last Supper; they reclined. And John was at Jesus' right, not his left.
[Comment: that's the problem with Evangelical sola scriptura. Again how does Wicker know who sat
where and how?]
" Mary had no encounter with her son Jesus on the Via Dolorosa (the way to Golgotha).
[Comment: This is pure nit-picking.]
2 "Extra-biblical elements" drawn from sources outside the Bible:
[Comment: on the first three items, the Bible is silent on what happened between the arrest and trial]
• Satan tempting Jesus in Gethsemane.
• Soldiers tossing a chained Jesus off a bridge.
• Jesus confronting Judas after the arrest.
• Pilate's wife bringing cloths to Mary so she can mop up Jesus' blood.
[Comment: the truth of the matter is, every precious drop of Blood of Our Savior was scooped by the Angels]
• Veronica offering Jesus a drink on the Via Dolorosa.
[Comment: what can be said? Sola scriptura is not reliable]
• Jesus felling six times on the Via Dolorosa (he falls once in the Bible. Wicker also comments that only nine
of Catholicism's 14 Stations of the Cross are in the Bible). [Comment: Try Oral Tradition]
• A raven pecking out the eyes of the "bad thief on the cross to punish him."
[Comment: This is pure cinematic effect. What does this symbolize is the question to ask]
• An earthquake cracking the floor and walls of the Jerusalem Temple (the Bible says only that the veil was ripped).
{Comment: again, too much reliance on sola scriptura]
• Peter twice telling Mary not to touch him, as if he is unworthy in the presence of her special holiness.
[Comment: Peter was in the presence of holiness. If Jesus was holy, so was His Mother. Wicker couldn't
tell holiness if he were in its presence]
• And in a hometown flashback, Jesus' brothers and sisters are absent, to fit with the Catholic belief that Mary
and Joseph never had marital relations, (in general, Wicker accuses Gibson of "Mariolatry," an old-fashioned
Protestant complaint against Catholicism.) [Comment: An old canard revisited! Pure, unadulterated blasphemy!
My Jesus, have mercy on this man for the insults he heaves on Your Mother.]
3. "Historical inaccuracies" that differ from non-biblical evidence, for instance technical details about
crucifixion.
[Comment: How can a Protestant know when his only reference is the Bible, which does not go into details?]
Even considering those items, Wicker concluded that "evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics alike can
embrace this
film as a powerful tool for getting the message of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection to the masses."