'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'

February 2004
		Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," opened Ash Wednesday to mixed reviews. Two theology professors take your questions on the religious and philosophical questions surrounding the film.

Forum Introduction What viewpoint does the Vatican have on Sister Ann Catherine Emmerich? Why would her book on the Passion be or why should it not be a source for depicting the story on film? I am confused about the movie's depiction of the central idea of Christianity as the crucifixion of Jesus. Do you recognize modern-day movies as the new art form in the 21st century in communicating religious messages/themes and specifically the Christian message? If Mel Gibson is in a conservative movement within Catholism that rejects the reforms of Vatican II, wouldn't it follow that he would reject the declaration of that body that Jews were not responsible for Jesus' death? What evidence would you give that Protestant theology has minimized the crucifixion; and would it therefore follow that Catholic theology has minimized the resurrection? Mel Gibson claims the movie is historically accurate but in actuality, isn't the story of Jesus' crucifixion portrayed in the Gospels? So aren't there 6 or so different versions of the story? Where is he getting his historical evidence? Do you feel comfortable with the artistic license Mel Gibson exercised in the dialogue, and a number of events, not found in the Gospels, both personally and theologically?	Tassos from Lithuania asks: Mel Gibson claims the movie is historically accurate but in actuality, isn't the story of Jesus' crucifixion portrayed in the Gospels? So aren't there 6 or so different versions of the story? Where is he getting his historical evidence? Also, how long were the gospels written after the death of Christ? Dr. Robert Johnston responds: Most scholars would say that the small variations in the accounts only add to the veracity of the central story. The differences are similar to what you and your friends might have in telling about an event that you all saw. Moreover, most of the differences come from each of the four Gospel writers having a different point that he wanted to make and thus used different aspects of the event to help get his theological perspective across. The fact that each of the writers wanted to emphasize different things has made it difficult for all who have made Jesus movies to choose whether to go with one Gospel writer's perspective or to synthesize them all. There is debate as to when the accounts were written down, but much of it seems to have been written down during the time there were still eyewitnesses to what happened who were living (cf. Mark and Luke, as well as Paul). Perhaps two of the gospels were written by those in the early church based on the teaching of the disciples and on earlier sources but this is debated. Dr. Philip Cunningham responds: In terms of narratives of the crucifixion, there are four Gospel presentations in the Bible, supplemented by theological observations by Paul, Most scholars (and contemporary Roman Catholic teaching) understands the Gospels to have been written a generation or two after Jesus' death or between the years 70 and 100. Though based on oral and some earlier written traditions about Jesus, they were primarily written to spread faith in the Crucified and Raised One. In response to your question about the source of Gibson's historical evidence, I would say that other than its bloodiness, the film does not reflect much historical awareness. This is because it is primarily based on the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich who blended the Gospels without regard for their historical contexts.