An exciting and engaging book that will appeal not only to academics but to the film-viewing public, educated lay-persons and students. Not only will the book aid this audience in a greater appreciation of the film 'The Passion of the Christ' but perhaps more importantly it will enable the reader to distinguish between both the contents of the film and the contents of the Gospels and between the contents of the film and what may be historically reconstructed about Jesus. Furthermore the book will aid the reader to appreciate the contributions that the study of the Gospels and the historical study of Jesus can make to the discussion of the film 'The Passion of the Christ'. Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is edited by Kathleen E. Corley, Oshkosh Northwestern Distinguished Professor and Professor of New Testament at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and Robert L. Webb, an independent scholar living near Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The other contributors are: Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of religious Studies at DePaul University, Illinois. Dr. Helen K. Bond, Lecturer in New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at New College, University of Edinburgh, UK; Dr. Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada; Dr Mark Goodacre, Senior Lecturer in New Testament at the Department of Theology, University of Birmingham, UK; Dr. Glenna S. Jackson, Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio; Dr. Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, Chicago, Illinois; Dr. Mark Allan Powell, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio; Alan F. Segal, Professor of Religion and Ingeborg Rennert Professor of Jewish Studies at Barnard College, Columbia University, New York; Dr. W. Barnes Tatum, Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Greensboro College, North Carolina; David J. Goa, Curator Emeritus at the Provincial Museum of Alberta and a Fellow of the M.V. Dimic Institute for the Study of Culture at the University of Alberta.
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Is Mel Gibson's The Passion "pious pornography" or devotional artistry? The lead-off essays in this collection, by popular Jesus researcher John Dominic Crossan and British New Testament scholar Mark Goodacre, will remind readers that on this question, as with nearly everything connected with Jesus of Nazareth, scholars can be depended upon to disagree. For Crossan, The Passion presents a "vision of a savage God" animated by anti-Semitism (Jesus and his disciples are never shown wearing yarmulkes, whereas the Jewish leaders are). For Goodacre, the film can be seen as "an extraordinarily powerful vision" in which the anti-Semitic tendencies of Gibson's sources have been muted (Gibson presents the sympathetic figure of Simon as a Jew, though some traditional sources have identified him as a pagan). Unfortunately, the remaining essays in this book, by an even-handed assortment of scholars, rarely equal Crossan's and Goodacre's incisive arguments. Nearly all the writers concur on a few points: Gibson adds and subtracts freely from the gospel texts, and depends heavily on the 19th-century mystic Catherine Emmerich. Ultimately, they say, his work must be judged as art, not history. But these nuggets of insight are obscured by pedantic writing and wooden interpretations that rarely do justice to Gibson's own passionate, provocative filmmaking.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Review
"…solid collection of 14 scholarly and well-argued articles. Highly Recommended."-Library Journal
“With the surprising and long-lasting popularity of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, there is every reason to expect that this solid collection of 14 scholarly and well-argued articles about the film will receive attention as well. The editors have commissioned scholars from Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic perspectives from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States…. The first thorough investigation of the movie, this is highly recommended.” –Library Journal, November 15, 2004 (Library Journal )
“Many of the essays…identify a subject from The Passion, such as Mary or Pilate, examine its depiction in the film, and then consider how the Gospels and Scripture scholars treat the same subject. This is useful way of considering the accuracy of the film.” –Commonweal, May 2005 (Commonweal )
'...All of the essays in the book are well written and balanced...a thoroughly useful tool in evalluating the film...highly...recommended! (Helenann Hartley Expository Times )
“With the surprising and long-lasting popularity of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, there is every reason to expect that this solid collection of 14 scholarly and well-argued articles about the film will receive attention as well. The editors have commissioned scholars from Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic perspectives from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States…. The first thorough investigation of the movie, this is highly recommended.” –Library Journal, November 15, 2004 (Library Journal )
“Many of the essays…identify a subject from The Passion, such as Mary or Pilate, examine its depiction in the film, and then consider how the Gospels and Scripture scholars treat the same subject. This is useful way of considering the accuracy of the film.” –Commonweal, May 2005 (Commonweal )
'...All of the essays in the book are well written and balanced...a thoroughly useful tool in evalluating the film...highly...recommended! (Helenann Hartley Expository Times )
'Lively and engaging, it undoubtedly makes fine reading for specialist and mere (screen-) spectator alike...Love or hate the film, there is no denying a deeper appreciation of its aims and issues will be gained with this superb collection to hand.'
~ Louise Lawrence, University of Glasgow
Mention of Robert L. Webb's essay:
"...provides a useful analysis of the much criticized, anti-Semitic influence of Anne Catherine Emmerich on Gibson's screenplay..." (Christianity and Literature, Spring 2007)
(S. Brent Plate, Texas Christian University )Mention of Robert L. Webb's essay:
"...provides a useful analysis of the much criticized, anti-Semitic influence of Anne Catherine Emmerich on Gibson's screenplay..." (Christianity and Literature, Spring 2007)
(, )
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This is a good book for anyone interested in how Mel Gibson's film relates to the Jesus of history, and the editors generally take the right approach: "We should not impose what we want Gibson to do with his movie but rather seek to understand, appreciate, and critique what he has done." Aside from one contributor (Crossan), the twelve authors do a fairly good job of this.
The first part presents two overviews of the film written by John Dominic Crossan and Mark Goodacre. Differences in tone, reason, and sanity cannot be overstated. Crossan's is a sanctimonious indictment and hard to take seriously, with preposterous overstatements found on every page: "If this film is not anti-Semitic, no such film can ever be made." In fact the film is no more anti-Semitic than the gospels, and considerably less so than Matthew and John. "Any Christian who accepts the Emmerich-Gibson theology of vicarious atonement is trapped in support of pornographic sadism." While the violence is extreme and the gore a blood-bath, neither is gratuitous. The subject matter demands them. Pornography encourages the viewer to want more, and the film does precisely the opposite. In effect Crossan serves as the foil against which Goodacre radiates sound judgment. The latter's essay is easily the book's finest: well-organized, well-written, explaining why the film can offer a powerful vision to Christians and non-Christians alike.
The second part is half the book and deals with particular subjects: the flashbacks (Robert Webb), the character of Judas (Scot McKnight), the figure of Satan (Mark Allan Powell), Mary and the women (Kathleen Corley), the Jewish leaders (Alan Segal), the Romans (Helen Bond), the trials of Jesus (Glenna Jackson), and the procession/crucifixion (Craig Evans).
Webb thinks the flashbacks are key to comprehending Gibson's vision: "without them the film would be a pointless gore-fest". I disagree. The flashbacks are unnecessary and distractive given the film's focus. And Jesus' passion isn't pointless; the context is supplied by familiarity with the gospel stories. I agree, however, with Webb's conclusion that Gibson's use of the flashbacks is "problematic and inadequate", not only because they insufficiently communicate the significance of Jesus, but because the viewer's own image of Jesus can provide all the framework one needs. Gibson's snapshots are too brief and superficial. In any case, Webb's individual commentaries on the flashbacks are helpful.
McKnight explains why Judas' betrayal and suicide is likely historical, while his demonization in the film is mythological though dramatically effective. Powell argues that the androgynous and alluring figure of Satan, while not exactly true to the gospels (let alone history), is a well-used and convincing representation of evil. Corley corrects Gibson's association of Mary Magdalene with the adulteress of Jn 8, and opines that both Marys should have been in the flashbacks with the disciples -- since historically they were disciples too.
Segal's objections are fair and considered (unlike those of Crossan) but misplaced. He believes the film is anti-Semitic for portraying the Jewish leaders under Satan's sway. Historically the priesthood had very good reasons for having Jesus arrested: he was stirring up crowds during passover, and he acted against the temple. Messianic movements (of which there were a variety) and threats against the temple could easily get one killed in Jesus' day, and these would certainly account for an historical passion more than any mythological reason owing to Satanic influence. Segal is obviously right. But Gibson's film is Catholic myth according to Emmerich, not history according to E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen. Controversial as it is, Satan's power over the Jewish leaders must be understood as foreordained in the context of this myth: "They act as the chosen people prepared by their whole history to carry out the ironic rejection of God, even as they defend his name. They persecute Jesus out of a righteousness given over to Satan for the time being, so that the battle Christ fights alone can be most intense: it is against his own." (Glenn Arbery, film critic)
Bond explains why the film's portrayal of Pilate is a blend of history, gospel apology, and artistic imagination: the real Pilate would have been callously indifferent to Jesus and killed him without second thought. Jackson observes many historical problems with the film's (and gospels') trial scenes. Evans gives a superb analysis of the relationship between the historical procession, the gospel route, and the medieval stations of the cross before turning to the crucifixion and what this terror entailed in the time of Jesus. He notes in conclusion that the early Christians would have been puzzled by Gibson's focus on passion instead of resurrection -- since Jesus' suffering and death was important as a prelude to the more climactic vindication by God.
The third part wraps up with contributions from W. Barnes Tatum, David Goa, and Robert Webb, who discuss the artistry of the film. Finally, editors Webb and Corley conclude that while Gibson's use of a harmonizing trajectory with the four gospels can be fairly expected (as in most Jesus films), his use of Emmerich is problematic on levels of both history and theology. That Emmerich is unreliable history is a given. That her theology is problematic amounts to a subjective claim which cannot be resolved by editorial appeals to modern sensibilities such as: "In a world where violence is seen as the answer to social and political problems, and where violence is glorified in various media, to suggest that God requires equally extreme violence for the salvation of humankind, is, to say the least, problematic." This is an inadequate response to the question of suffering in general and atonement theology in particular. Still, the editors have done an invaluable job of providing a useful handbook for those wanting to know where history ends and myth begins in Gibson's film.
The first part presents two overviews of the film written by John Dominic Crossan and Mark Goodacre. Differences in tone, reason, and sanity cannot be overstated. Crossan's is a sanctimonious indictment and hard to take seriously, with preposterous overstatements found on every page: "If this film is not anti-Semitic, no such film can ever be made." In fact the film is no more anti-Semitic than the gospels, and considerably less so than Matthew and John. "Any Christian who accepts the Emmerich-Gibson theology of vicarious atonement is trapped in support of pornographic sadism." While the violence is extreme and the gore a blood-bath, neither is gratuitous. The subject matter demands them. Pornography encourages the viewer to want more, and the film does precisely the opposite. In effect Crossan serves as the foil against which Goodacre radiates sound judgment. The latter's essay is easily the book's finest: well-organized, well-written, explaining why the film can offer a powerful vision to Christians and non-Christians alike.
The second part is half the book and deals with particular subjects: the flashbacks (Robert Webb), the character of Judas (Scot McKnight), the figure of Satan (Mark Allan Powell), Mary and the women (Kathleen Corley), the Jewish leaders (Alan Segal), the Romans (Helen Bond), the trials of Jesus (Glenna Jackson), and the procession/crucifixion (Craig Evans).
Webb thinks the flashbacks are key to comprehending Gibson's vision: "without them the film would be a pointless gore-fest". I disagree. The flashbacks are unnecessary and distractive given the film's focus. And Jesus' passion isn't pointless; the context is supplied by familiarity with the gospel stories. I agree, however, with Webb's conclusion that Gibson's use of the flashbacks is "problematic and inadequate", not only because they insufficiently communicate the significance of Jesus, but because the viewer's own image of Jesus can provide all the framework one needs. Gibson's snapshots are too brief and superficial. In any case, Webb's individual commentaries on the flashbacks are helpful.
McKnight explains why Judas' betrayal and suicide is likely historical, while his demonization in the film is mythological though dramatically effective. Powell argues that the androgynous and alluring figure of Satan, while not exactly true to the gospels (let alone history), is a well-used and convincing representation of evil. Corley corrects Gibson's association of Mary Magdalene with the adulteress of Jn 8, and opines that both Marys should have been in the flashbacks with the disciples -- since historically they were disciples too.
Segal's objections are fair and considered (unlike those of Crossan) but misplaced. He believes the film is anti-Semitic for portraying the Jewish leaders under Satan's sway. Historically the priesthood had very good reasons for having Jesus arrested: he was stirring up crowds during passover, and he acted against the temple. Messianic movements (of which there were a variety) and threats against the temple could easily get one killed in Jesus' day, and these would certainly account for an historical passion more than any mythological reason owing to Satanic influence. Segal is obviously right. But Gibson's film is Catholic myth according to Emmerich, not history according to E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen. Controversial as it is, Satan's power over the Jewish leaders must be understood as foreordained in the context of this myth: "They act as the chosen people prepared by their whole history to carry out the ironic rejection of God, even as they defend his name. They persecute Jesus out of a righteousness given over to Satan for the time being, so that the battle Christ fights alone can be most intense: it is against his own." (Glenn Arbery, film critic)
Bond explains why the film's portrayal of Pilate is a blend of history, gospel apology, and artistic imagination: the real Pilate would have been callously indifferent to Jesus and killed him without second thought. Jackson observes many historical problems with the film's (and gospels') trial scenes. Evans gives a superb analysis of the relationship between the historical procession, the gospel route, and the medieval stations of the cross before turning to the crucifixion and what this terror entailed in the time of Jesus. He notes in conclusion that the early Christians would have been puzzled by Gibson's focus on passion instead of resurrection -- since Jesus' suffering and death was important as a prelude to the more climactic vindication by God.
The third part wraps up with contributions from W. Barnes Tatum, David Goa, and Robert Webb, who discuss the artistry of the film. Finally, editors Webb and Corley conclude that while Gibson's use of a harmonizing trajectory with the four gospels can be fairly expected (as in most Jesus films), his use of Emmerich is problematic on levels of both history and theology. That Emmerich is unreliable history is a given. That her theology is problematic amounts to a subjective claim which cannot be resolved by editorial appeals to modern sensibilities such as: "In a world where violence is seen as the answer to social and political problems, and where violence is glorified in various media, to suggest that God requires equally extreme violence for the salvation of humankind, is, to say the least, problematic." This is an inadequate response to the question of suffering in general and atonement theology in particular. Still, the editors have done an invaluable job of providing a useful handbook for those wanting to know where history ends and myth begins in Gibson's film.
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
By calmly
Format:Paperback
For the price of this book, you could rent the movie many times.
Turning to a book full of scholars can be problematic. They don't agree and it can be virtually impossible to separate facts from opinions.
You can read the gospels for yourself (and very likely have) to get a good sense of how close Gibson stayed to the Gospels. You can read for yourself in the Gospels that they only say about Jesus' flogging that he was flogged and about Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified. So you undoubtedly don't need scholars to realize that Gibson went beyond the Gospels to convey what the flogging and crucifixion may have been like.
Reading these scholars may inform you. It may also confuse you. What remains open to serious question is the film's focus on the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. You may do well to consider whether that was helpful to you. You may also wonder how that focus on sacrifice, as well as any critique of it, might be being manipulated nowadays.
Turning to a book full of scholars can be problematic. They don't agree and it can be virtually impossible to separate facts from opinions.
You can read the gospels for yourself (and very likely have) to get a good sense of how close Gibson stayed to the Gospels. You can read for yourself in the Gospels that they only say about Jesus' flogging that he was flogged and about Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified. So you undoubtedly don't need scholars to realize that Gibson went beyond the Gospels to convey what the flogging and crucifixion may have been like.
Reading these scholars may inform you. It may also confuse you. What remains open to serious question is the film's focus on the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. You may do well to consider whether that was helpful to you. You may also wonder how that focus on sacrifice, as well as any critique of it, might be being manipulated nowadays.
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
