It’s Been a While! Let Me Write Something about Bart Ehrman…and Mel Gibson

Once again, it has been over a month since my last post. It is amazing how busy things get when you are a high school teacher again at the start of a school year. Not only does teaching keep you busy, but I got sick early on…then an ear infection…then I had to deal with the lethargy that came with taking the medicine to fight the ear infection. The school year itself is going fine, but I just haven’t had the time or energy to be diligent with blog posts as I had hoped to be.

That being said, I am committed to get something written before October. Luckily for me, I happened to come across a blog post by Bart Ehrman that, not surprisingly, ticked me off a bit. Well, “ticked off” might be a bit of an overstatement. “Annoyed” might be a better description. Still, this particular post by Ehrman got me thinking about a certain mindset among some people—somewhat in more academic, and sometimes liberal and/or antagonistic toward Evangelicalism circles—that does irritate me.

The post in question is entitled, “The Gospel According to Mel (Gibson).” In it, Ehrman dishes on the now almost 20-year-old movie, The Passion of The Christ. Ehrman writes the post as sort of a reflection of a course he is teaching entitled, “Jesus in Scholarship and Film.” The goal of the course, as Ehrman explains, is to get the students to see how “every Gospel, every scholar, and every film presents Jesus in a different way.” Fair enough—that is obviously true. But then for the entirety of the post, Ehrman focuses on Mel Gibson’s movie pretty much with the sole purpose of mocking and ridiculing it.

You can read the post for yourself, but I want to highlight some of the sentiments Ehrman expresses about the film and then respond to them.

Gore and Antisemitism
Ehrman begins by saying that when he gives his students the choice to watch either The Passion of the Christ by Gibson or The Last Temptation of Jesus by Scorsese, most of his students choose Gibson’s movie and are moved by it. He then flippantly writes, “It certainly is moving, especially if you’re moved by gore.” He then claims that he doesn’t know of one New Testament scholar who likes the film and even calls the film antisemitic.

In full disclosure, when The Passion of the Christ first came out, I thought it was a good—and extremely well-done—movie. Still, I didn’t share the rapturous view of the movie that a great deal of conservative Evangelicals had, but neither did I agree with the criticism by others regarding the movie’s violence. In fact, I couldn’t understand the seething criticism of the movie, especially from biblical scholars, over the issue of the violence of the flogging and crucifixion. Did Gibson probably go a bit overboard in his depiction of the flogging and crucifixion? Probably. But I will tell you that I felt his depiction of the brutality of Roman flogging and crucifixion was probably a whole lot closer to their reality than virtually every other depiction in any other Jesus movie, where Jesus is whipped with merely leather straps, and not the actual cat-of-nine-tails.

In every other Jesus movie I’ve ever seen, Jesus’ wounds amount to a few ketchup stains on his back. And I suppose I just never have understood why anyone—especially Christians and especially biblical scholars—would be more upset by Gibson’s movie than with the vanilla-flavored, watered-down depictions in the other movies. On a scale of 1-10, with a “5” being what actual Roman flogging and crucifixion was like, I thought Gibson’s movie was probably an “8” on the blood and gore, while ever other Jesus movie I had seen was about a “1.”

So, why such an intense outcry and condemnation of Gibson’s movie going overboard and a mere nothing about the completely sanitized and unrealistic depictions of the other movies? I don’t know. Still, I find myself wondering that some people might really be uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus actually suffering—possibly a mild form of Gnosticism: “Okay, Jesus ‘suffered’ and was crucified, but let’s not see anything that might make us feel uncomfortable.”

The other thing that bothered me about Ehrman’s (and other’s) condemnation of the movie over the level of violence is that there is a complete—and I mean COMPLETE—ignoring of, in my opinion, some of the movie touching, moving, and truly human depictions of Jesus ever seen on film: the various scenes as a child with his mother, as a carpenter at work talking with his mother, the washing of the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper, his friendship with Mary Magdalene. Gibson depicted a Jesus in his full humanity, not the starry-eyed mannequin that graces most other Jesus movies—one that is always looking up into heaven for cue cards. And for me, those scenes in The Passion of the Christ are phenomenal—and they make the movie.

Finally, there is the charge of the film being antisemitic. This is one I have never understood. Jesus was arrested at night by the Temple establishment, who then cooked up charges against him and pressured Pilate to crucify him. Anyone who intelligently reads the Gospels and watches the movie should clearly see that the “blame” ultimately falls, not on “the Jews,” but rather the corrupt Temple establishment. Just because later anti-Semitic Europeans in the Middle Ages twisted the Gospels to blame “the Jews” as “Christ-killers,” that doesn’t mean an accurate portrayal of who was behind the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus is antisemitic.

Why the Brutal Depiction?
Ehrman also takes issue with Gibson’s claim that he stayed faithful to the biblical text and points to Gibson’s gruesome depictions of both Jesus’ flogging and crucifixion as case in point. Ehrman writes: “So, is this being faithful to the Gospels?  Actually, no.  Not even close.   Realize the Gospels *could* have given a blow by blow (literally) account of what happened when Jesus was tortured before his execution.  They could have gone on for pages describing this lash of the Roman thongs and its effect on his battered body, and then the next, then the next, for pages – just as Gibson’s version goes on minute after minute after minute after minute.   But they don’t.  How do the Gospels themselves handle Jesus’ flogging?  By saying: “and they scourged him.”   That’s *IT*.  No detailed account.  No blow by blow.  Nothing.  Just a simple statement.  And why is that?  Because the Gospels – unlike Gibson – were not INTERESTED in the gory second-by-second details.  They were interested in other things.  That is, they were interested in things other than Mel Gibson is interested in.  So let’s not say that this gruesome account is being true to the Gospels.”

Allow me to give a different take. Why don’t the Gospels give a blow-by-blow description of the flogging and crucifixion? Simple: People who lived and suffered under Roman rule already knew full well what it was like. There was no need to explain what all that entailed, people already knew full well what it entailed. By contrast, most Americans in the 21^st century who have gotten used to the watered-down, ketchup-stained depictions of Jesus’ crucifixion, have no freaking clue how brutal Roman flogging and crucifixion was. And yes, the Gospel writers were interested in “other things”—of course, Ehrman doesn’t bother to articulate them. (And as a teacher, I always cringe when someone writes “things” when more elaboration is demanded). So, what are those “other things”? The Gospel writers went to great lengths to elaborate on the meaning of Jesus flogging and crucifixion by peppering their accounts with allusions and quotes from the Old Testament. They wanted their audience to know that Jesus was the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament story. Everything that God had been working on, from Abraham, through Moses, and the entire history if Israel and Judah, was coming to a head in Christ.

Of course, as a practical matter of movie making, teasing those literary connections out on films is a rather difficult thing to do. All in all, though, Ehrman’s criticism of the movie on this point seems rather weak.

Ehrman’s Beef with Jesus’ Latin
Ehrman also didn’t like the fact that in Gibson’s movie Jesus talks with Pilate in Latin. Jesus, after all, was an Aramaic-speaking Jew—”But how in the world would Jesus have learned Latin?  (Some scholars have suggested that Jesus knew a smattering of Latin given the Roman presence in the land; but that has been shown to be almost certainly false.  There were no Romans present in Jesus’ town of Nazareth, and prior to his arrival in Jerusalem the last week of his life, he probably never encountered a Roman) (yes, I do know there are stories about him and centurions and so on in the NT; I have my doubts about them.  but in any event, these were not occasions for him to take some Latin lessons).”

So why would Gibson have Jesus speak in Latin? A-ha! Because Gibson belong to a “certain sect” of Catholicism that still insists the Mass be conducted in Latin. “Then surely Jesus himself could have spoken Latin.  Right?!?  That appears to be the logic behind the strange shift in Jesus’ tongue at his trial.  Jesus of course was fluent in Latin.  It’s the sacred language.”

I’m sorry, but again, I find this an incredibly lame criticism. First of all, how can Ehrman be so sure Jesus couldn’t have known any Latin (or Greek)? Judea and Galilee had been under foreign rule for hundreds of years. It had been thoroughly Hellenized. On top of that, Rome had been ruling the region for almost 100 years. And it’s not like the region was the size of the United States—think more like New Jersey. Is it, therefore, so unbelievable that a Galilean Jew who grew up in a town a mere seven miles from the major city of Sepphoris could not have known some Greek and Latin?

And how can Ehrman confidently say that Jesus probably never had encountered a Roman before the last week of his life? That’s right, because he pretty much rejects the Gospels as being historically reliable—how convenient.

And what’s with the absurd claim that Gibson’s preference to a Pre-Vatican II form of Catholic mass is “behind the strange shift” of Jesus speaking in Latin to Pilate because “it’s the sacred language”? The fact is, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility Jesus could have known some Latin, and besides…it’s a movie! Gibson had most of the movie done in Aramaic. Was he going to have Pilate speak in Aramaic? It was a mere director’s choice—let’s not read some bizarre conspiratorial reason behind a director’s decision.

Gospel Accuracy
Ehrman concludes his post by saying Gibson’s movie isn’t an “accurate retelling of the accounts of Jesus’ trial and death as found in the Gospels. It’s the Gospel according to Mel. I have no problem with Mel writing his own Gospel.  Each of us is perfectly free to write his or her own Gospel.  What I object to is a millionaire actor and director who is himself obsessed with violence and blood and gore and torment and death, and who cannot separate these obsessions from his own religion, pushing these obsessions on unwary viewers who are supposed to think that this Gospel of Mel is in fact the Gospel of Truth.”

Translation? “I don’t have a problem with Gibson writing his own Gospel…but I have a problem with Gibson writing his own Gospel.” I’m sorry, but apart from a few things, I thought the movie was actually pretty faithful to the accounts found in the Gospels. Let’s face it, it was Gibson’s faithfulness to Matthew’s account of Jesus’s trial before Pilate that invited charges of antisemitism, because in Matthew’s Gospel, it is the contingent from the Sanhedrin who bring Jesus to Pilate who say, “Let his blood be upon us and our children (27:25).”

All this is to say that I have never understood the kind of seething hatred and criticism of The Passion of the Christ that people like Ehrman (and some people I know) have. Like any movie, there are things you can criticize. I thought it was a very well-done movie, but I wouldn’t say it is one of my favorite movies by a long shot. There are a number of things I think could have been changed and improved. But I do think Gibson portrayed the humanity of Jesus far better than I’ve seen in any other Jesus movie. I have to think that perhaps the main criticism of the movie—particularly the depiction of the brutality of Roman flogging and crucifixion—reveals how uncomfortable people are with a truly suffering Jesus. People might readily criticize typical depictions of Jesus as being too white and European-looking, but they still seem to want him to be rather pristine.

Even if Gibson’s movie took the brutality a bit too far, I’m okay with accepting a beaten and bloodied Christ. I can more readily identify with that Christ than I am with the milk toast Jesus of most movies…or the intellectually dissected Jesus of modern academia.