NT Blog

On a recent blog entry on Hypotyposeis, Stephen Carlson makes some interesting comments on Alan Garrow's forthcoming book, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache, and adds, "the $120 retail price from T&T Clark in that series may mean waiting until the SBL Annual Meeting". I am sure that it is worth mentioning that T and T Clark International are continuing with Sheffield Academic Press's tradition of providing half-price on hardback books in the JSNTS that are not otherwise available in paperback. This is an excerpt from a recent letter sent out with the recent T and T Clark International catalogue in March (page numbers refer to the current catalogue):

Our scholar’s discount scheme enables you to buy titles published in the following leading research series at half the normal retail price:

• Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements (see pages 4-10)
• Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements (see pages 13-17)
• Library of Second Temple Studies (formally Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplements) (see pages 22-23)

Now collectively known as the T&T Clark Library of Biblical Scholarship, these series offer the very latest research in all aspects of Biblical Studies, including innovative work from historical perspectives, studies using social-scientific and literary theory, and developing theological, cultural and contextual approaches.

Signing up for scholar’s discount is easy. Either e-mail us your details at newbooks@continuumbooks.com or visit our new website www.tandtclark.com and register on-line.

By registering for scholar’s discount you are entitled to 50% off all hardback volumes in The T&T Clark Library of Biblical Scholarship AND you qualify for special offers on countless new and backlist titles.

As far as I can see one can not yet register on-line, so it looks like the best route is the email one. But I have written to T & T Clark International to enquire further about the possibility of their adding a registering service for this discount on their new site and I will report on any update here. I should perhaps add in this context that I have recently accepted an invitation to become editor of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series and will report further on this in due course.

---

The latest email from Ben Witherington III has been added to beliefnet's Scholarly Smackdown on Jesus and Paul conducted between Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III. This time the order is reversed and Ben Witherington contributes first:

Scholarly Smackdown Round 3: Ben Witherington III

His topic is Gnosticism and the canon. Was there any fully-fledged Gnosticism in the first century? Witherington says no. There's one useful bit of bibliography, something I had missed: Craig Evans, "Thomas, Gospel of" in R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (eds.), Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Development (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1997): 1176.

I'm still not sure if this format is conducive to really decent critical engagement. The problem I mentioned before is exacerbated by reversing the order of engagement in this round so that here Witherington if effectively starting afresh. There's not enough actual conversation here.

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

Thanks to Arne Halbakken for this link from WorldNetDaily

Jewish activists: Apologize to Mel
Posted: April 24, 2004
By Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Even the most hostile critic must concede that just as depraved films stimulate degenerate imitation, so do uplifting films stimulate noble behavior. That is certainly what has been happening with "The Passion." Wouldn't it be uplifting and even noble were the Jewish groups who earlier had insulted "The Passion," its maker, the Gospels that inspired it and indeed all Christians, now to issue an apology?

Wouldn't it be refreshing if those who earlier warned of anti-Jewish violence because "Gibson is spouting classic anti-Semitism" would now say contritely, "We were just plain wrong"? How about a "We're sorry" from those who threatened, "Mel Gibson's mouth has turned into a lethal weapon." Instead, what they are now saying is, "Just wait till those Muslims see 'The Passion.'"

One of the things that concerns me about the piece is the implication that it was only "Jewish groups" who were concerned about The Passion of the Christ. Many of the film's most vociferous critics have not been Jewish; and the famous "ad hoc committee", as Paula Fredriksen has tried to make clear, had as many Catholics on it as Jews. Still, Lapin appears to be right that the "dire warnings" turn out not to have been justified.

---

Some new additions (and one update) to the Gospel of John Books and Articles page. These are all Word documents and are from Jeffrey Staley's homepage. Thanks to John Urquhart for alerting me to the new URL for the second of these items:

Jeffrey L. Staley, Reading with a Passion: Rhetoric, Autobiography, and the American West in the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 1995), full text of the pre-publication chapters.

Jeffrey L. Staley, “What Can a Postmodern Approach to the Fourth Gospel Add to Contemporary Debates About its Historical Situation?” in Robert Fortna and Thomas Thatcher (eds.), Jesus in the Johannine Tradition: New Directions (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001)

Jeffrey L. Staley, “Liar Liar and ‘This Woman’ in John 7:1-8:59: From Rhetorical Analysis to Intertextual Rereading” in Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors (eds.), New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Festschrift in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003)

---

Another addition to the Historical Jesus: Books and Articles page:

Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve”, IBR Studies (no date), Institute for Biblical Research web site

---

I am going to make up for being late on this last week by noting the latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature as soon as it's out. These are just the titles directly related to the NT:

The United Bible Society's New Testament Handbook Series
Reviewed by Susan Lochrie Graham

Bøe, Sverre
Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as Pre-Text for Revelation 19, 17-21 and 20, 7-10
Reviewed by Michael Barram

Davis, Stephan K.
The Antithesis of the Ages: Paul's Reconfiguration of Torah
Reviewed by Gary D. Salyer

Gathercole, Simon J.
Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5 Reviewed by H. H. Drake Williams III

Koester, Craig R.
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community
Reviewed by Steven A. Hunt

Patte, Daniel and Eugene TeSelle, eds.
Engaging Augustine on Romans: Self, Context, and Theology in Interpretation
Reviewed by Martin Ramey

Theissen, Gerd and Dagmar Winter
Translated by M. Eugene Boring
The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria
Reviewed by John Byron

Witherington, Ben III and Laura M. Ice
The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective
Reviewed by Seung-Ai Yang

Labels: Simon Gathercole

---

A forthcoming book of interest in the JSNTS series:

Alan Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence of Didache (London and New York: T & T Clark International, 2004).

Abstract:

This book maps the relationship between Matthew's Gospel
and the Didache.

While scholars agree that some form of relationship between these two texts must exist, no consensus regarding the precise nature of this relationship has yet been agreed. At the same time, serious consideration has never been given to the possibility that Matthew's Gospel was written with direct knowledge of a text substantially similiar to the single extant manuscript of the Didache.

If it may be shown that Matthew had direct knowledge of the Didache, then a number of significant implications follow, for example: new evidence is brought to bear on the Synoptic Problem; insight is gained into the pattern of first century Christian liturgical practice and belief; and a detail is uncovered in the story of Gentile incorporation into the Jewish form of the Jesus movement.

The book has an excellent accompanying web site:

Didache Garrow

It is run by the author, Alan Garrow and designed around the principle of a cube, with the main cube leading off to several different cubes. It takes a little while to get used to navigating your way around this web site, and you might find yourself making several false moves, but it's a fun idea and I'm all in favour of nice new ideas like this. The site includes details about the book, the author, background information, sample chapters, coloured texts and so on. A great example to others on the innovative use of the web to act as a companion to a monograph.

---

Andrew Gregerman emails with the note that in my Featured Links: July 2001 I had a bunch of references to the FindArticles.com reproductions of Harvard Theological Review. I have been gradually stripping these away from the site, but had missed this page. I've now added a note there.

---

Don't forget to look at the latest Explorator from David Meadows:

Explorator 6.52

One paragraph from New York Times linked there caught my interest:

Arts Briefing
By Lawrence Van Gelder

It includes some comments on the American newspaper coverage of The Passion of the Christ:

According to the initial findings of a study by the College of Communications at Marquette University, a Jesuit institution, most articles that it categorized as straight news reports were either neutral or positive. Reaction to the film, about the last hours of Jesus, became more negative in editorials, reviews, critiques and feature articles. The preliminary report, part of a larger study of newspaper coverage in all 50 states, said that besides addressing general religious themes, the press tended to focus on anti-Semitism, violence and historical accuracy.

Yes, I would say that that was my impression too -- those were the three areas around which the comments have coalesced.

[And thanks too to David Meadows for a link to my article on The Passion]

---

I am so used to linking to and commenting on others' reviews and articles about The Passion of the Christ that it feels odd to point to something I've written myself. I hope that readers will not think me self-indulgent to do so. The latest article to be added to the Essays from Bible and Interpretation on The Passion is the following (with American spelling):

The Passion, Pornography and Polemic:
In Defense of The Passion of the Christ
By Mark Goodacre
April 2004

If you recognise sections of it, it will be because parts are adapted from blog entries here. But the majority of the article, about three-quarters of its 4,500 words, is new.

---

Geza Vermes's article from The Guardian on The Passion of the Christ (see blog entry on) has now been reproduced on the Bible and Interpretation web site as part of their section Essays from Bible and Interpretation on The Passion:

Celluloid Brutality
Mel Gibson's film about Christ is horribly gory, historically wrong - and it will inspire judeophobia
By Geza Vermes
Friday February 27, 2004
The Guardian

---

On Paleojudaica, Jim Davila has some interesting and insightful comments on The Passion of the Christ:

REVIEW of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

Jim comments that "Speaking of Greek, it's strange that the sign on the cross only had the Latin inscription and one in Aramaic", which contrasts with John 19.20 which mentions Greek too. Jim suspects "some pre-Vatican II, pro-Latin Mass agenda here". This is an interesting point -- the lack of Greek in the film as a whole is sharply focused in this context where John 19.20 is clearly the source. It has me wondering how other Jesus films deal with the titulus. One of the difficulties it presents is that it can make the titutuls pretty big. Jesus of Nazareth (dir. Franco Zeffirelli, 1977) certainly has the full Johannine titulus with Greek, Latin and Hebrew but I am struggling to think of any other Jesus films that do. Here is a link to a picture of the cross with the full titulus from Jesus of Nazareth:

Jesus of Nazareth: cross with titulus

I would imagine that the recent Gospel of John (dir. Philip Saville, 2003) must have it, but I don't specifically remembering noticing it. I'll check.

Jim also comments:

I don't believe that anyone could take that amount of flogging and then get up again and walk for any distance, let alone do so carrying a heavy cross. Jesus would have gone into shock during or just after the flogging and would not have been of much use after that. Given the level of sanitation, nutrition, and medical care at the time, he probably would have died from the flogging alone.

The one thing I wonder here is over Josephus' description of Jesus ben Ananias in War 6.5.11, someone who was whipped under the Roman procurator Albinus until his bones were laid bare and yet who still, apparently, survives this appalling torture. Of course Josephus' description might well be exaggerated, but I do not think it implausible that the scourging of Jesus could have contributed to his relatively quick death on the cross (cf. also Jim's comment to this effect). The evangelists do not agree on whether it was three hours or six, but either way this is relatively speedy by the standards of ancient crucifixions, and apparently quicker than the death of the two robbers or brigands whose legs had to be broken according to John.

I agree with Jim about the level of realism and share the feeling over the comparison with, say, the second season of 24 (which was, nevertheless, great television). The comment that "At least The Passion didn't involve that kind of cartoon violence" contrasts a bit with Paul Flesher's "Mel's Jesus: A 'Real Man' or Just a Toon?".

Jim's remarks that "The crucifixion scene in the movie is physically impossible" seem pretty well founded and are worth reading; I had not thought about the pull of the hands on the nails and the looseness of the tieing, which I had not noticed. On the latter, compare the picture of the crucifixion in Jesus of Nazareth above, also pretty loose tieing of the ropes along with crucifixion through the palms.

I thought Jim's comments on the alleged anti-Semitism fairly balanced; I have written on this in a little more detail now in an article on Bible and Interpretation. As I also comment there, I could not agree more with Jim's "wish [that] he had worked with an advisory team of specialists". And finally, I think Jim's suggestion that the Satan in the film resembled the grim reaper in Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey makes more sense than Bruce Chilton's absurd suggestion of Dr Evil and mini-me from Austin Powers (see blog entry on).

---

A new addition to the Historical Jesus: Books and Articles page:

Robert L. Webb, “Jesus' Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications”, IBR Studies (no date), Institute for Biblical Research web site.

---

David Instone-Brewer has uploaded to the web the latest of his Tyndale Tech newsletters (with thanks to Jim Davila on Paleojudaica for the alert). The topic is unicode, and especially unicode for Hebrew. As ever, it is full of useful bits and bobs:

Greek and Hebrew Fonts: Unicode and Older

I think my own experience of working with unicode is more positive than David's and for two reasons, first that I work with Greek a lot but Hebrew only a little and second that I work with PCs and not Macs. There are a few things I would add from my own experience and which may prove helpful to others:

(1) Palatino Linotype: if you are running Windows 2000 or XP you arleady have a unicode font installed called Palatino Linotype. This includes a Greek character set (not all unicode fonts do) and it looks excellent on both screen and paper. The reason that this is worth mentioning is that if you are running Windows 2000 or XP and require a really good Greek font, then you don't have to do anything.

(2) Inputting the text. This is the big issue. I have been using this excellent facility for some time now:

Unicode Classical Greek Inputter

This is designed by James Naughton and provides a very straightforward facility for you to type in unicode and then to copy and paste into your document. You can choose your preferred font (Arial Unicode MS, Cardo, Gentium, Palatino Linotype etc.). If you prefer mouse-clicking to typing, you can do that too. An additional advantage of this web page is that you can save it onto your hard drive and access it whenever or wherever you want, without being connected to the internet. So it's worth saving now while one has the chance -- it might not be there in a year's time!

(3) Quotations from the Greek New Testament: If in a given document you are simply writing out quotations from the Greek New Testament, there is no need to type this afresh. Here there are several options:

(a) Search or browse on The Unbound Bible, choosing "NA26, Accents (Unicode)" and copy and paste the results into your document.

(b) Do the same at the Online Greek Bible, choosing either "Athena" or "Palatino Linotype".

(c) Go to James Naughton's Unicode Classical Greek page and download the complete text of the Greek New Testament in an HTML help file or PDF. The advantage of this is that you can store it locally and use off-line.

Update (19.23): Paul Nikkel comments in Deinde on the Tyndale Tech email and the comments in Paleojudaica. He comments that "Actually the current Mac OS has Unicode support and as far as I know has had it since OS 8.5 or so. Also, contrary to the Tyndale article OpenType fonts are supported on the Mac OS X as far as I know, Mac Developers Article." Read more . . . . .

Update (Saturday, 22.24): Rubén Gómez comments in Biblical Software Review Weblog.

Update (Saturday, 22.32): Jim Davila comments in Paleojudaica. Minor note: Jim comments on Deinde, "If there's a way to link to individual posts on his site, I couldn't find it". You click on the "View comments" link and that gives you an URL for that post plus any subsequent comments on it.

Labels: Tyndale Tech, Unicode

---

The latest addition to the Historical Jesus: Books and Articles page is this article from my former teacher John Ashton of the University of Oxford, with thanks to David Mackinder for alerting me to this:

John Ashton, “The Religious Experience of Jesus”, 2002-03 James Lecture, Harvard Divinity School, in Harvard Divinity Bulletin 32/1 (Fall/Winter 2003): 17-20. [View whole issue in PDF]

---

The media can't get enough of John Dominic Crossan at the moment. This one, alerted in Bible and Interpretation, is from the Daily News:

Crossan examination: Jesus scholar looks at 'Passion' and politics of Christ
By Alexander Stevens / CNC Staff Writer
Thursday, April 22, 2004

"I've written about 20 books and I've gone on book tours, but I don't think I've ever had this kind of media attention," he says, on the phone from his home in Florida. "It's all because of this movie." . . . . .

. . . . . "I think he gored-up the movie," says Crossan. "No scholar has any evidence that the soldiers that scourged Jesus were sadistic brutes who thoroughly enjoyed their work, as opposed to soldiers just doing their job, and wanting to get it over and have a beer." . . . .

. . . . . . "By simply taking the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, he's made it seem as if the entire crowd of Jerusalem is against Jesus," says Crossan. "So here's what you've got (in the movie): You've got non-Christian Jews, and they're all bad, and you've got Christian Jews (such as Mary Magdelene and the Virgin Mary), and they're all good.

"Everywhere else I look, Jews are bad," he adds. "They're jeering Jesus all the way to the crucifixion. I don't see why Jews who, even if they dislike Jesus, would like what the Romans are doing to him.

I think that the problem with this is that it is inaccurate -- it does not accurately describe the way that the film depicts the journey to the cross. On the comment that "No scholar has any evidence that the soldiers that scourged Jesus were sadistic brutes", I would want to point out the evidence from Josephus, War 5.11 which suggests just this, that soldiers could be brutal and sadistic ("wrath and hatred . . . . by way of jest") in the act of crucifixion. It is not a far cry from that to imagining they could be the same way in scourging a victim.

---

The Light House in Wolverhampton (U.K.) has an event on next Tuesday following one of its screenings of The Passion of the Christ and I'll be taking part along with several others:

PANEL DISCUSSION: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (18)
Tues 27 April, 6.45pm
Mel Gibson’s film has caused a great deal of interest, from Christians and from people of other faiths and none. There have been comments about the role of cinema in evangelism, the search for authenticity by the use of Latin and Aramaic and accusations of anti-Semitism. An opportunity to hear a variety of views about the film and to express your own opinions. The panel will include: The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bourke Anglican Bishop of Wolverhampton, Dr George Chryssides and Dr Deirdre Burke Religious Studies Lecturers at the University of Wolverhampton, Len Brandes former President of the Jewish Congregation in Wolverhampton and Dr Mark Goodacre from the Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion at Birmingham University.
Cost: free. All welcome.

Further details available here.

---

Both Rubén Gómez on Bible Software Review Weblog and Jim West on Biblical Theology refer to this list:

Top Ten Bible News sites

It's located on Theology.me.uk, a site devoted to Theology discussion and resources. It's a useful site, currently anonymous, though I do happen to know the person who runs it. It is nice to see this blog in the list above, but there are noticeable absentees, most particularly Paleojudaica, which was the inspiration for me to get going in the first place and is without doubt one of the top biblioblogs. Although the list is at the moment effectively limited to blogs, I'd also want to reference at the top Bible and Interpretation. Although new on the scene, Deinde certainly looks like it is going to be a very useful resource too.

---

Bible and Interpretation link to a short but interesting article on John Dominic Crossan in Wisconsin's Capital Times:

Author stresses 4 different Gospels
By Phil Haslanger
April 20, 2004

There are one or two great lines, including ""I would define a fundamentalist as one who doesn't like the way that God organized the Gospels". He also claims that "It's the multiplicity of the Gospel that crowns my work".

---

Robert Gundry has a very interesting letter in the current SBL Forum:

Letters to the Editor

The letter (more of a short article) is headed The Burden of the Passion and you will need to scroll down a little to read it. Although it is not mentioned by name, he is responding directly to Paula Fredriksen's article in the previous month's SBL Forum entitled History, Hollywood, and the Bible: Some Thoughts on Gibson's Passion. This much is clear from his reference to "scholars [who] accuse Gibson of reading the Gospels through the contra Iudaeos tradition". It is all worth reading, but a couple of excerpts anyway. On Pilate:

. . . . we also know from outside the New Testament that he yielded to Jewish pressure on at least one occasion earlier than Jesus' trial (Josephus, Antiquities 18.55-59; War 2.169-74). Pilate's position was precarious . . . . and Pilate himself had complaints lodged against him (Philo, Embassy 299-305; Josephus, Antiquities 18.85-89), the latter of which led to his own deposition. So he had reason to get the jitters and cave in. And since he did cave in despite his belief in Jesus' innocence . . . . he himself does not look innocent in the least.

On the violence:

In this light, the nearly interminable beating of Jesus does not have the look of gratuitous violence in the sadomasochistic mode. Not at all! Its very length and brutality are designed to test the ability of Jesus to carry "the whole burden of sin" and prove Satan wrong. Unbelievers may not like this theology. It may disgust them. But believers or not, reviewers only expose their theological insensitivity to call the violence inflicted on Jesus "gratuitous."

On Satan:

Satan has a comeuppance too. When Jesus dies having successfully borne the weight of the whole world's sin, Satan collapses on the site of Jesus' death-and shrieks. Why? Because that is what demons do when exorcised, when cast out. Shortly before his passion Jesus said, "Now is the prince of this world cast out." Exorcistic language if there ever was such! Satan has had his/her day; but thanks to Jesus' burden-bearing, that day is over.

I didn't think it was "the site of Jesus' death"; but I will have another look when I see it again next week. Also interesting is Gundry's interpretation of the portrayal of the effeminate Herod Antipas. Someone should encourage Gundry to write a full article developing some of his fascinating insights on the film, if they have not already done so.

Incidentally, on reading Fredriksen's article again, it looks like it was written before she saw the film. She refers explicitly only to material she viewed in the earlier version of the script that was read by the "ad hoc committee" and (twice) to the film's trailer. There is nothing in this article that would require knowledge of the film itself.

---

Also on Deinde, news of a response to the AAR Joint Meetings Petition headed by Karen King and Elaine Pagels. It seems that the petition has been unsuccessful. Deinde references Ryan's Lair for a copy of the announcement, which has it under the heading Excellent news from the AAR. The gist of it is that there is no change about the fundamental decision to discontinue joint meetings with the Society of Biblical Literature from 2008, but that a "task force" will be set up to look at the "implementation" of the decision. Additionally, "the Board instructed the executive director to begin exploring the possibility of holding periodic concurrent meetings with other relevant associations" including the SBL.

There is no report from this meeting yet on the AAR Web Site, though I was interested to read the AAR's FAQ about the decision, including answers to the questions "What was the AAR Board's process for making this decision, and why didn't you seek the opinions of members?" and "Is it accurate that the AAR did not consult with the SBL before making this decision?". Both of these FAQs date back to last July. Effectively their answer to the second question is "No".

Update: Jim Davila comments in Paleojudaica and concludes that "The response of the Board of Directors is not satisfactory. With respect, this is not over yet." It certainly seems extraordinary to me that the membership of AAR were not consulted about this major decision.

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

On Deinde "Tsar" makes some useful comments on Harold Scanlin's The Myth of the Paperless Church: Codex, Cognition and Christianity (mentioned here yesterday):

The Myth of Paper

I agree with the characterisation of the article:

While the majority of his article considers the codex and its effect on canon, he starts off by writing about the myth of the paperless office, which comes from the identically titled book by Sellen and Harper. Unfortunately, although he starts with this paragraph and names his article in line with it he doesn't dwell on this issue as it is relevant now.

Yes. Although the article is interesting, the title leads one to expect something slightly different. Scanlin begins by talking about paper's affordances as a reason for the unlikelihood that it will decline in importance. Tsar comments:

It is true that the electronic medium we have today is a poor substitute for the affordances of paper, but to be fair it is only recently that the affordances of this media have started to be realized. The trend since the 70's has been to recreate the properties of paper in an electronic format. Recently though the trend has shifted to understanding and applying the advantages of the electronic medium, such as XML format documents, wikis, dynamically generated pages among others. The important point here is that the strengths of electronic medium are not in the end user/content interaction but in the creation and transmission of the texts, precisely the areas that are of interest to Scanlin in his article but which he leaves unexplored.

One comment on the format of Deinde: it is a great deal easier to read on its blog-style main page than it is on its forum-style subpages. I wonder if all of the forum-style material could also be brought in to the main page with a permalink? Also, my own preference is to know who is writing what. The comments are intelligent and it would be nice to know who "Tsar" is.

---

Part 2 of Stephen Carlson's reflections on The Passion of the Christ is now available on Hypotyposeis. The topic is the question of the film's historical inaccuracies:

My Thoughts on The Passion of the Christ (2 of 3)

---

This notice is posted on behalf of Dapo Asaju. Please correspond with him at the address below.

17th Annual Conference of Nabis
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THEME: DECOLONIZING BIBLICAL STUDIES IN AFRICA
Place- Lagos State University, Ojoo, Lagos State, Nigeria.
Date- July 6-9th 2004

Full details available at:
http://www.nabis.8m.com

This is for the Nigerian Association for Biblical Studies. Dr Asaju is
hosting the conference in his University and enquiries, correspondences,
topics of proposed papers etc should be sent to

Dr. Dapo Asaju
Department of Religions,
Lagos State University, Nigeria
dapoasaju@yahoo.co.uk

I have also added a link to the Nigerian Association for Biblical Studies on the Societies page of the NT Gateway.

---

Thanks to Gail Dawson for the link to this article from The Tower Online, the newsletter for the Catholic University of America (free registration required):

Moloney: 'Scene After Scene is Just Wrong' in Passion Film
Portrayal of Jews is 'So Massively Negative,' Says TRS Dean
By Ryan Schanberger
Published: Friday, March 26, 2004

The themes of the critique will be familiar to most by now, the depiction of Pontius Pilate, the harmonizing of the Gospels, Jesus' carrying the whole cross while the thieves carry the crossbeams and so on:

I didn't like it as a movie," he said, criticizing the violence that "goes on, and on, and on." According to Moloney, the film lacked "narrative tension," and seemed the same all the way through. "In fact, I nearly fell asleep during the way of the cross."

"It's just historically wrong -- it's not what actually happened," Moloney said . . .

There are also some comments from an event at the Catholic University of America featuring Timothy Friedrichsen, William Loewe, William Dinges and Rabbi Jack Moline.

---

I have had a look around and have found a web page for Paul Flesher (see Flesher lecture on The Passion of the Christ):

Introducing Paul Flesher

A couple of the links are dead; for one the correct link can be found here: Wyoming Web Lectures on Religion. This is a project to provide full on-line lectures in real-media from key figures like Jacob Neusner and Rosemary Radford Ruether. This is a great idea and has obviously inspired the provision of Flesher's lecture on The Passion of the Christ.

Thanks to those who have informed me that standing to lecture is the norm among able-bodied Americans. Note that his web page provides a picture of Flesher standing to teach too.

---

On Scholars: M I have added a link to the following:

Troy W. Martin
St Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

The page includes a full list of publications.

One of Troy Martin's articles is available on-line in BSW's electronic version of Filología Neotestamentaria:

Troy W. Martin, "The ambiguities of a 'baffling expression'" (Gal 4:12), Filología Neotestamentaria 12 (1999): 123-138

---

On Paleojudaica Jim Davila draws attention to The Journal of Religion and Society 6 (2004), a special edition on The Passion of the Christ. It may be worth adding that the same material also features in the Journal of Religion and Film 8 Special Issue no. 1 (February 2004). The Journal of Religion and Society version has the advantage of some PDF versions of the articles. The Journal of Religion and Film version has added five articles reproduced from the SBL Forum for March, by Nicola Denzey, Paula Fredriksen, John Dart, Frances Flannery-Dailey and Paul Flesher and Robert Torry. Unfortunately, there are a couple of articles from that edition of the SBL Forum not there reproduced, those by Gregory Allen Robbins and W. Barnes Tatum. Having said that, the useful thing about the addition of the SBL articles is that it provides some material written after the film has been viewed. The disappointing thing with the material from the Creighton symposium is that it is all from before the film has been viewed by any of the contributors. Perhaps they will have a follow-up featuring responses to the film?

---

When commenting on Waco earlier today, I noticed that James Tabor has flagged up a new entry on his Jewish Roman World of Jesus:

Personal Reflections on My Viewing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
James Tabor

One or two comments, though these will be familiar already to regular readers of this blog:

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.

The source for Jesus carrying the whole cross rather than the cross beam is the report in the Synoptics that Simon of Cyrene helped with carrying Jesus' cross, something that has informed the traditional Christian depiction.

Tabor also writes, with reference to the article by Joe Zias:

Gibson also had Jesus’ nailed to the cross in the hands and feet, rather than through the wrists and the heel bones, as we know was actually the case.

But do we "know" this? The Zias article suggests that this particular victim's arms were tied -- he was not nailed through the wrists or hands. And we do not know, of course, how typical this one victim was. Josephus' evidence in War 5.11 is that victims were crucified in a variety of poses. In fact that passage is interesting also for another element in The Passion of the Christ:

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies. [Courtesy of James Tabor, Josephus' References to Crucifixion]

I am interested here in that phrase "by way of jest", something that shows that the horrifying depiction of Roman soldiers deriving pleasure from torturing Jesus may not be far off the mark. It is a truly chilling thought.

Tabor also comments on the fact that it would normally take days for the victims to die and that crucifying victims involved making sure that the death was prolonged and agonising. But there is one thing here that is interesting in Jesus' case -- that the Gospels record that Jesus' death was relatively quick (six hours in the Synoptics and three in John). In John, the two other men needed to have their legs broken to bring about a speedier death.

Tabor also comments that "Not a single Jew is presented with any kind of character development". I think that this is incorrect, as regular readers will know. Simon of Cyrene, the only character whose Jewish identity is explicitly commented upon in the film, shows real character development, from reluctance to get involved with a random criminal to exhorting the soldiers to stop the violence.

---

A new addition on the SBL Forum and continuing its digital technologies theme:

The Myth of the Paperless Church: Codex, Cognition, and Christianity
Harold P. Scanlin

---

Bible and Interpretation point to this article in the Texas Catholic Newspaper:

'The Passion of the Christ'
WAS IT AS IT WAS?
Biblical scholars discern fact from artistic license
By BILL HOWARD

The article features the views of Carolyn Osiek (Texas Christian University’s Brite Divinity School); Brian Schmisek (Director of the University of Dallas’ Institute for Religious and Pastoral Studies in Irving); and Dr. Mark A. Chancey (Southern Methodist University). Chancey's views can be read in full in his Bible and Interpretation article An Unacknowledged Passion. In this newspaper review there are some enjoyable comments, especially Osiek's summary:

“Artistically, it gets an ‘A,’ historically a ‘B+’ and theologically a ‘C.’ I recommend it, as long as one keeps a balanced theological mind. If one has never taken seriously the brutality of a Roman crucifixion, this is a good learning experience. . . . If the film will help us understand Jesus’ great act of love and his solidarity with the victims of torture, it is well worthwhile.”

Given many scholars' overreactions to the film, this article overall is quite refreshing, especially the acknowledgement of the artistic value of the film:

“If you want to portray it in cinema, there’s a lot that you want to fill in,” Schmisek said. “I’m not watching the movie thinking that’s the way it really happened. This was an artistic portrayal of (Gibson’s) interpretation. I would think most people know that it’s not a literal portrayal.”

There is also the frequently mentioned criticism about Jesus carrying his own cross:

Osiek and Chancey had difficulty with the carrying of the cross and crucifixion scenes. One of the inconsistencies, according to Osiek, was Jesus carrying the entire cross, whereas the two prisoners carried just the crossbeam. Jesus would likely have carried the crossbeam, she said.

But, as I have pointed out here before, the source for Jesus carrying the entire cross is the role played by Simon of Cyrene who can then carry the cross for Jesus. That is why in the Gospel of John film, with no Simon, one can have Jesus too carrying the crossbeam only.

---

I am a bit late on the latest from the Review of Biblical Literature. Some New Testament reviews:

Gathercole, Simon J.
Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5
Reviewed by James P. Sweeney

Lapham, F.
Peter: The Myth, the Man, and the Writings
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

Lüdemann, Gerd
Paul: The Founder of Christianity
Reviewed by Michael Kaler

Reinhartz, Adele
Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John
Reviewed by Jeffrey S. Siker

Witherington, Ben III, and Laura M. Ice
The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective
Reviewed by Ronald R. Clark

Labels: Simon Gathercole

---

This new web site is available:

Deinde: Discussion and Resources for Biblical Scholars

It is run by Paul Nikkel (graduate student at the University of Sheffield), Rafael Rodriguez (graduate student at University of Sheffield) and Danny Zacharias (graduate student at Acadia University under Craig Evans). Paul Nikkel describes it in this way: "The purpose of the site is to provide news and commentary relevant to biblical scholars as well as resources and a place for discussion." Its main layout is in blog style so it would be useful to have an RSS feed. Looks like it could be a valuable web site.

---

Bible and Interpretation's Essays From Bible and Interpretation on the Passion adds a link to a video presentation by Paul Flesher:

“The Passion” as an Icon
By Paul Flesher, Video Presentation, Real Player plug-in
(University of Wyoming: April 2004)

It's a 45 minute lecture. It is an accessible piece; it does not assume any major knowledge of the Bible, and takes one steadily through one Biblical scholar's reflections on the film. At about 20 minutes in he discusses some of the images that come from other Jesus films, citing Jesus Christ Superstar (for Herod Antipas), Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal (for the cross falling on Jesus). As far as one can tell it is a recording of some kind of public lecture, with Flesher sitting down to address his audience. (Is this usual among American lecturers?) At about 27 minutes in the lecture finishes and there are some quite interesting questions.

Update (20 April): there is a web page linking to this talk here:

The Passion of the Christ discussion

---

On Hypotyposeis Stephen Carlson has published the first part of his thoughts on The Passion of the Christ:

My thoughts on The Passion of the Christ (1 of 3)

This entry is not showing up in my bloglines subscription, perhaps because it is before Stephen changed the feed, so you may need to go to the link above if you have not already read it. Stephen writes, ""Passion" is not an intellectual understanding but a powerful emotional feeling, and Gibson deftly exploits the medium of film to evoke just such a response in his audience" and he speculates that "It is probably the intensity of viewer's unavoidable emotional reaction that is responsible for stridency of some of the reviews to the film", something I have often wondered myself. He explores the inappropriate use of the term "pornography" in reviews of the film and compares the violence here with the violence in Pulp Fiction and Fargo. I am looking forward very much to Parts 2 and 3.

---

It is good to see Stephen Carlson's Hypotyposeis blog back with a vengeance. If, like me, you read all your blogs via Bloglines, you might have missed several entries. You will need to adjust the feed for Hypotyposeis -- unsubscribe from the old feed and then enter http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/atomfeed.xml.

---

Also well worth mentioning is James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher, Why Waco?
Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America (California: University of California Press, 1995). Chapter 1 is available on-line:

What might have been

. . . . A person familiar with the biblical texts could have perceived the situation in wholly different terms from the government's "hostage rescue." For the Branch Davidians, no one was a hostage. The only "rescue" they needed was from the government itself. In their view, the federal agents represented an evil government system, referred to in the book of Revelation as "Babylon." The idea of "surrendering to proper authority," as the government demanded throughout the next seven weeks, was absolutely out of the question for these believers unless or until they became convinced it was what God willed. As they saw it, their group had been wantonly attacked and slaughtered by government agents whom they understood to be in opposition to both God and his anointed prophet David Koresh. Their fate was now in God's hands.

The Waco situation could have been handled differently and possibly resolved peacefully. This is not unfounded speculation or wishful thinking. It is the considered opinion of the lawyers who spent the most time with the Davidians during the siege and of various scholars of religion who understand biblical apocalyptic belief systems such as that of the Branch Davidians. There was a way to communicate with these biblically oriented people, but it had nothing to do with hostage rescue or counterterrorist tactics. Indeed, such a strategy was being pursued, with FBI cooperation, by Phillip Arnold of the Reunion Institute in Houston and James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, one of the authors of this book. Arnold and Tabor worked in concert with the lawyers Dick DeGuerin and Jack Zimmerman, who spent a total of twenty hours inside the Mount Carmel center between March 29 and April 4, communicating directly with Koresh and his main spokesperson, Steve Schneider. Unfortunately, these attempts came too late. By the time they began to bear positive results, decisions had already been made in Washington to convince Attorney General Janet Reno to end the siege by force . . . .

Update: See comments from Jim Davila in Paleojudaica.

---

On this day when in 1993 77 cult members died in a fire at their compound in Waco. This morning's Guardian publishes an article from its archive, Funeral pyre at Waco : Two Britons among cult's survivors. Not long ago, Kenneth Newport published a fine book called Apocalypse and Millennium : Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), Chapter 9 of which is "Waco apocalypse: the Book of Revelation in the Branch Davidian tradition".

More on Waco later.

---

The NTGateway blog is taking a break over the weekend but will be back on Monday. If you are waiting for an email from me at the moment, let me apologise. At the moment correspondence is coming in far, far more quickly than I am able to answer it. I do get to pretty much all correspondence eventually.

---

Bible and Interpretation continues its series of essays on The Passion of the Christ with this one focusing not on the film itself (he has not seen it) but on the related question of Inter Jewish conflict in the Gospels as a way of reacting to the charges concerning anti-Semitism:

Inter-Jewish Conflict and the Passion of Jesus
To argue that the Evangelists all conspired to re-write history, condemning the Jews and exonerating the Romans, seems a little far-fetched
Anthony J. Tomasino

---

This notice posted on behalf of Prof. Philip Esler:

------------------------------
The St Andrews Conference on Old Testament Interpretation and the Social Sciences
Wed 30 June to Sun 4 July 2004

In 1994 St Andrews hosted a conference entitled 'Context and Kerygma: The St Andrews Conference on New Testament Interpretation and the Social Sciences'. Many of the papers presented were subsequently published in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler (London and New York: Routledge, 1995).

Now, a decade later, we are holding a similar conference in St Andrews. It will run from the evening of Wednesday 30th June 2004 to mid morning on Sunday 4th July 2004 and will be entitled 'The St Andrews Conference on Old Testament Interpretation and the Social Sciences.'

Participants will be accommodated in the delightful environment of St Salvator's College (as in 1994) and most papers will be given in or around St Mary's College.

The speaking slots for the conference are now essentially complete (see list of agreed speakers and topics below) and we believe that they will provide a rich exposure to the conference theme, especially for staff and postgraduates interested in social-scientific exegesis. The papers cover many general topics and also studies of particular texts.

The full cost of the conference including accommodation, food (including the Conference dinner) and diversions will be £285. But for those who do not wish to go on outings or attend the final dinner, or are willing to share a room, a cheaper rate (something close to £200) is available for the conference.

Please email Philip F. Esler (pfe@st-andrews.ac.uk) to express interest or for further information.

List of Confirmed Speakers

Mario Aguilar, University of St Andrews, 'Symbolic Wars, Age-Sets and the Anthropology of War in 1 Maccabees'

Marvin Chaney, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Francisco, USA, 'The Political Economies of Eighth-Century Israel and Judah' (provisional title)

Robert Coote, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Francisco, USA, 'Tribalism in Ancient Palestine and the Hebrew Bible'

Zeba Crook, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, 'Modelling Exchange in the Biblical Era'

Richard DeMaris and Carolyn Leeb, University of Valparaiso, Indiana, USA, 'Can a Filicide Be a Worthy Judge? Honor, Vow, and Ritual in the Jephthah Story Cycle (Judges 10:6-12:7)'

Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce, University of Bologna, Italy, 'Levitical Sacrifice in Anthropological Perspective'

John H. Elliott, University of San Francisco, USA, 'Euphemism and Dysphemism in the Biblical Communities and Their Cultural Roots: A Social-Scientific Study of Deut 25:11-12'

Philip F. Esler, University of St Andrews, 'What Solomon's Father Did in the Ammonite War: A Social-Scientific Study of 2 Samuel 10-12'.

Lester Grabbe, University of Hull, 'Prophets Ancient and Modern: Anthropological Insights on Israelite Prophecy'

Anselm Hagedorn, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 'Ethnicity and Stereotypes in the Book of Nahum. Social-Scientific Insights into the Literary History of a Prophetic Book'

Jutta Jokiranta, University of Helsinki, 'The Prototypical Teacher in the Qumran Pesharim'

Carolyn Leeb, University of Valparaiso, Indiana, USA, 'Polygyny in the Biblical World: Insights from Haiti'

Bruce J. Malina, 'Identity Theory, Politics and the Pontifical Biblical Commission's The Jewish People and Its Scriptures in the Christian Bible '

Andrew Mayes, Trinity College Dublin, 'Freud, Moses and Monotheism'

Dietmar Neufeld, University of British Columbia, Canada, 'Body, Ritual and States of Ecstasy in the Old Testament'

Douglas E. Oakman, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA, USA 'Hermeneutics in Context: Biblical Interpretation in Dialogue With the Social Sciences'

John Pilch, Georgetown University, Washington, USA, 'Altered States of Consciousness and Visions in Ezekiel'

Richard Rohrbaugh, Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Or USA, 'Purity and Assimilation in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs'.

Gary Stansell, St Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA, 'Wealth in Ancient Israel: or, How Abraham Became Rich'

---

Thanks to Helen-Ann Hartley, Wilkinson Junior Research Fellow and Assistant Dean,
Worcester College, Oxford, for sending over her thoughts on The Passion of the Christ:

-----------------------
These thoughts are offered in response to a review in the Oxford Diocesan newspaper The Door (April 2004). The reviewer states that in his opinion, the film ‘can draw believers more deeply into the heart of their faith. And as an evangelistic tool for non-believers that will hopefully intrigue them and cause them to ask questions and further explore particularly the life of Christ under-emphasised here, I think it will do far more good than harm’. I disagree. The film is a deeply flawed account of the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus based upon a synthesis of the gospel accounts with material from extra-canonical sources, heavily influenced by the Stations of the Cross. As such it provides no narrative context for the truly harrowing scenes of torture and crucifixion other than the theme of substitutionary atonement. (Incidently, a quick study of the credits reveals the special effects people have worked on some major Hollywood horror films).

We have no real inkling of the activities surrounding the Passover, other than the full moon and Mary’s quotation of the first question from the Haggadah. The use of flashbacks provides minimal, contrived links with the life of Christ and we are told nothing of his programme of teaching and healing. Jesus as the pre-emptor of Western dining culture, producing a table as though it came straight out of IKEA? I don’t think so. Pilate is portrayed as a dithering and reflective character (presumably picking up on the Gospel references to him ‘wondering greatly’ – Mk. 15:5 for example) whereas in reality he was a brutal individual who would have had no hesitation in condemning yet another Jew to death; Herod is a camp buffoon direct from a production of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’; the chief priests and elders are a brooding lot who stay in their full regalia throughout, presumably because we are meant to see them as the real villains, they even accompany Jesus up to Golgotha. Jesus’s words ‘Father forgive them, they know not what they do’ are aimed at the chief priest and not, as in the Gospels, at the Roman soldiers casting lots. The Romans themselves are a mad bunch, almost animal-like in their relentless abuse of Jesus. Satan moves about the Jewish crowds and demonic children hound Judas to his death. The sense of total opposition between Jesus and the Jewish crowds (with a few exceptions) is pressed home. Gibson leaves in the line: ‘His blood be on us and our children’ (not subtitled) and in this perhaps the greatest distortion lies.

Aside from the debate over the supposed anti-semitism (or indeed whether it is even appropriate to use this term), it is not hard to see why many Jews have expressed great concern over the film. The film provides Christians with the opportunity to reflect on the suffering of Jesus but also more importantly, the chance to reflect on how the narratives of Jesus’ death have played a role in Jewish-Christian relations. The story of Jesus is surely about his life, death and resurrection and seeking to represent Jesus by showing us the last few hours of his life distorts the message. I wouldn’t see the film – read the book instead!
---------------------

---

Bible and Interpretation post a notice of this article in the Globe and Mail from last Saturday:

Jesus the social reformer? It makes nice fiction
By DOUG SAUNDERS

But they are also objectionable, not just to conservative believers, but also to a number of secular liberal scholars. The charge against Mr. Crossan is led by E. P. Sanders of Duke University in North Carolina, who is widely regarded as the world's most authoritative expert on first-century Jewish culture and history. Mr. Sanders describes himself as a "secularized Protestant" who was raised in the social-gospel tradition. He, too, would like to see a Jesus who fits into that tradition. As a sober historian, though, he realizes that there is no such thing.

"One may sympathize with the effort to find support for economic reform in the ministry of Jesus. It is frustrating to see inequality and injustice in the world today and not to be able to call on Jesus to support the many changes that are so badly needed," he wrote in the New York Review of Books. "The basic problem for such a thesis is that evidence is lacking." . . . .

As far as I can tell, all the quotations are taken from the New York Review of Books exchange between Crossan and Reed on the one hand and Sanders on the other. I have commented on this previously. Unfortunately, it seems that now none of that exchange is available for free.

---

Thanks to Melisso Quero from the BBC for this notice. The final two episodes in the Bible Mysteries series will be broadcast on the following dates (here with blurb and, for Revelation, a link to its web page):

Revelation: The End of the World
Sunday 25 April on BBC Two, 12:00-12:50

Many believe the terrifying visions of Armageddon, the Beast and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse hold the key to the end of the world. This programme investigates new evidence revealing that the Book was written as a warning against the worship of Rome's most powerful Emperors and that the infamous number of the beast was not 666, but 616 - secret code for the Emperor Caligula.

Peter the Rock
Sunday 25 April on BBC Two, 12:50-13:40

He was the cowardly disciple who denied knowing Jesus, yet found the strength to establish the church and the courage to die for it. The evidence shows that in fact St Peter was the John Major of his time. His bland, middle of the road management style was precisely what was needed to unite a divided movement under threat.

In the Revelation episode, look out for my colleage Professor David Parker, who will be explaining about the number 616.

---

BBC Scotland broadcast a 55 minute special on Jesus films and their music on Easter Monday. There are lots of clips, and some interesting interviews with key people involved including Tim Rice (Jesus Christ Superstar), Geoffrey Burgon (Life of Brian) and a co-producer involved in the music of Last Temptation of Christ (will check the name). There is also quite a lot of me in it. You can listen on-line here:

Silverscreen Superstar

In this Easter special, musician Davey Scott goes behind the screen for the untold stories about the music in the classic 'Jesus films'. Jesus Christ Superstar, Godspell, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Life of Brian all come under the spotlight.

Or you can go to this page and scroll down and click:

Radio Scotland Features

---

I have just come across an interesting passage about the relationship between the character Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation and the postulate Q in the Synoptic Problem in a book by Michael Barrett and Duncan Barrett called Star Trek: The Human Frontier (London and New York: Routledge, 2000):

The name may have various sources; an obvious one is 'question' or 'query'. Another possibility is the gadget expert in James Bond films. It has one relevant history in Christian theology, where the so-called 'synoptic problem' of the authorship of the gospels is held by some to involve a 'hypothetical entity' responsible for the creation of parts of these texts not otherwise explicable. 'To postulate Q is to postulate the unevidenced and the unique.' Q is here a sort of residual category, invoked when need arose and now, it seems, the subject of much controversy. (82-83)

It's particularly gratifying to me to see Austin Farrer's "On Dispensing With Q" getting quoted in this context, and to see Q described as "the subject of much controversy"!

---

I was happy to receive in today's post from T and T Clark International the reissue of my second book, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. It has a great new cover with an illustration of "Saint Matthew the Evangelist, from 12th Century Byzantine evangelistary". I'm afraid I can't point to a nice picture of it on the T & T Clark Web Site because there's not one there yet. It is part of a new series called Understanding the Bible and Its World and there are details of the series available here:

Understanding the Bible and Its World

This new series is designed with the needs of introductory level students in mind. It will also appeal to general readers who want to be better informed about the latest advances in our understanding of the Bible and of the intellectual, political and religious world in which it was formed. The authors in this series bring to bear the methods and insights of a whole range of disciplines—including archaeology, history, literary criticism and religious studies—while also introducing fresh insights and approaches arising from their own research.

And should you wish to buy a copy (I know, this is all appalling self-promotion, but no one else is going to do it for me) then here is the link:

The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze

The book has an accompanying web site still available (but with the old pic.) here:

The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze Web Site

---

On Paleojudaica, Jim Davila points out this article on Discovery News with an extraordinary title:

Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face
By Rossella Lorenzi

Now the scientific article on which that news piece is based has been published, with thanks to David Mackinder for the link:

The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud
Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo
Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics 6 (June 2004): 491-503

That link will take you to an abstract of the article:

Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing, developed ad hoc, was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations. Body features were identified by template matching. The face and probably also the hands are visible on the back of the Turin Shroud, but not features related to the dorsal image.

From that page you can navigate your way to the full text of the article after having signed in or created an account. It is available free for thirty days (from today) only. The article itself is tough for non-experts like me to fathom, but there are lots of nice pictures and there is material that one can follow [TS=Turin Shroud]:

Therefore it has been ascertained that an image exists on the back of the TS. It certainly corresponds to the face and probably also to the hands, where the luminance levels are higher. In other words, there is an image on the bs corresponding with the one on the fs, which, at least as regards the face, corresponds to it in form, size, and position.

The face image is therefore doubly superficial. This means that, if a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle (figure 17). (501)

---

Beliefnet have published Round 2 of the new Scholarly Smackdown on Jesus and Paul between Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III. Remember to read it while you can -- the last one (Crossan and Witherington) went premium after it was finished:

Scholarly Smackdown: Did Paul Distort Christianity?
Round 2

Since you and I have some substantive disagreements on what Paul said, it’s important for those participating in this conversation who are not scholars to know that this discussion is not just a matter of “liberal” vs. “conservative,”-much less “he said, she said”-- but that serious scholars, the great majority of them Christians, like you and me, can honestly interpret these letters differently. Those who want to read more about the various viewpoints will find here suggestions of a few places to start, so that they may come to their own decisions.

There's lots of material of interest, though I can't help thinking -- as with the Crossan / Witherington exchange -- that there is much too much talking past each other. There is not enough of the kind of really stimulating direct exchange of views that one might have expected. One of them will ask a question and the other will not answer it or will answer it only indirectly. I wonder if they would benefit from some of the everyday cut-and-thrust of the academic e-lists which can often hold one to account in a pretty direct way. If you don't answer a question, someone will ask it to you again; if your answer skates around the issue, someone will point this out. One of the things I like about the e-lists is the (intelligent) use of the in-line comment -- quoting your dialogue partner's views and engaging with them. I am enjoying these new "Scholarly Smackdowns" (though I still hate the title); I hope beliefnet do more of these in the future; and I think that they are more than just a series of mini-articles from contrasting perspectives; but I would like to see the participants engaging with each other a little more directly than they sometimes do at present.

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

Bible and Interpretation list this article from the Toronto Star (TheStar.com):

Christian scholar questions Gibson's depiction of Jesus
Theology taken from nun's meditations
Passion is dangerous, sadistic, expert says
RON CSILLAG

"This is the most savage movie I have ever seen. I've never seen anything like it. It is two hours of unrelenting brutality." . . . .

. . . . "I have said that if this is the way God is, this punishing God who takes it out on Jesus instead of us, then we should not worship that God. We're dealing with a savage God and we are in really serious trouble if that's what God is like."

Crossan isn't done with his question: "Is your God a punishing God who demands punishment for sin but, who instead of taking it out on us, takes it out on his own beloved son?

"I'm waiting for some strong evangelical with a conscience to say, `Wait a minute. This is not our Jesus. This is not our God.'" . . . .

. . . . . But Crossan is aware of the movie's intent. He knows Gibson's title says it all.

"He said he's not interested in (Jesus') ministry and resurrection, but his sacrifice. But (Gibson) has gone from sacrifice to suffering, and from suffering to sadism. What he's decided to do, and what every passion play does, is to take the four Gospels and reduce them to one. Then you take what each of them does and reduce that to (Jesus') death.

"Then you reduce death to passion, which means to suffer. He shows the last hours (in Jesus' life) as suffering, and I think at that point, it becomes sadism because all that shows you is people thoroughly enjoying beating Jesus to a bloody pulp.

"I'm sure the Crucifixion was horrible," Crossan goes on. "I'm sure the scourging was horrible. I think rape is also horrible but I don't think we should dramatize it or show it in detail. It would be pornography." . . . . .

. . . . . The movie is 5 per cent from the Gospels, 80 per cent from Anne Catherine Emmerich and the rest from Gibson. If she was copyrighted, he'd be sued, or she would get a major screenwriting credit," Crossan says with a chuckle.

But he becomes very earnest when he says he finds it a "huge irony that all these conservative Christians are awestruck over a movie that is based on an extremely conservative Roman Catholic nun's meditations," and not on the very scriptures they hold as inerrant . . . .

. . . . . Ultimately, what the film will convey to foreign markets is that "there are Jews who are bad and there are ex-Jews, called Christians, who are good."

Several of the items here have appeared in other comments made by Crossan on the film. But some comments on specific elements raised here. First, hyperbole. Perhaps this is the most savage film that Crossan has seen, but its violence is nothing like as strong as it is sometimes claimed to be. It is certainly not one of the most violent films made. Nor is it "two hours of unrelenting brutality"; there is a lot of relenting, whether in terms of the camera's gaze, the witnesses' reactions or the flashbacks. Second, harmonizing. I don't know that one can criticize the filmmakers for harmonizing the four Gospels (to "reduce them to one"). Of course we'd like them to do the work that we love doing with the Synopsis, but this is not realistic when one is looking at Christian storytelling. Third, more hyperbole. The film is indeed more dependent on Emmerich's visions than many realise. I was quite struck myself by how many details came from the Dolorous Passion when I began to read it. But 5 per cent Gospels and 80 per cent Emmerich is seriously overstating it.

---

On his monthly blog the Dartboard, John Dart mentions the following:

AAR Joint Meetings Petition

The content is that "We the undersigned members of the American Academy of Religion petition the Board of Directors of the AAR to rescind its action taken in April and July 2003 to discontinue concurrent annual meetings with the Society of Biblical Literature." This comes with authority -- it was created by Elaine Pagels and Karen King. But as Dart points out they need to strip out some of these names before submission, and especially Red Butt Monkey, Mel Gibson School of Theology.

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

On Paleojudaica Jim Davila kindly mentions my piece on The Pleasures and Perils of Talking to the Media. I don't think I have ever read it myself (since submitting it, that is!) and have just done so. I see a split infinitive in this line: "Their working assumption is that you are likely to get treated badly and to either have your views ignored, misunderstood, or distorted." I was surprised because I feel like I am always correcting split infinitives in students' work. This looked shoddy on my part. But I looked at my own version and it is not there. What I wrote was ". . . and to have your views either ignored, misunderstood or distorted". There's another problem with that -- some would say that you should not have the structure "either . . . . , . . . . or . . . . " -- but I am relieved to see that I do not inadvertently do something I am always moaning to others about! Note to self: remember to read material you submit to web sites when it appears. Suggestion to SBL Forum: allow an author to read a "proof".

Update (17.12): SBL have already made the change. Thanks; very speedy work!

---

Thanks to David Mackinder for the link to this article from today's (now for me yesterday's) New York Times:

Holy Week Pilgrims Flock to 'Passion'
By ANNE THOMPSON

Attendance grew steadily through the week and reached its highest on Good Friday, the commemoration of the Crucifixion, said Bob Berney, the president of the movie's distributor, Newmarket Films.

"Every night since Palm Sunday the numbers have gone up," he said on Friday. "It's a very rare movie that returns to No. 1 in its seventh week."

"The Passion" earned an estimated $17 million on 3,240 screens, Mr. Berney said, up 61 percent from the previous weekend. Since opening it has grossed $354.8 million in the United States, Mr. Berney said, making it the eighth-highest-grossing film of all time . . . . .

. . . . . "It was a campaign-style marketing plan," Mr. Berney said. "Bush conservatives were the target audience, but it spread beyond that."

When Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks released "The Prince of Egypt" in 1998, he took a different approach. He spent four years building support among Jews and Christians alike for that animated family film about Moses, which earned $101 million. "Mel embraced controversy," Mr. Katzenberg said. "I avoided it and built consensus." . . . . .

---

On Paleojudaica and Biblical Software Review Weblog there are notices of new content on the SBL Forum. There are three articles in the Features section, no doubt with more to come:

How I Met the Computer, and How it Changed my Life
by Robert A. Kraft

Technology and the Transmission of the Biblical Text
by James R. Adair

Transferring Biblical Narrative to Graphic Novel
by David G. Burke and Lydia Lebrón-Rivera

Incidentally, it is good to see that SBL Forum are using permanent URLs, i.e. any individual articles one links to from previous issues of the Forum have remained constant. But I wonder whether an indexing of previous articles would also be useful. At present you can search the archives but I think a browsing facility would also be useful. I would also be interested to see this "Forum" opening up another forum for SBL members to discuss the articles posted. I will write with these suggestions while they are fresh on my mind.

---

This is from the Religion Press Release Service (and talk about trying to milk the publicity from The Da Vinci Code!):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GOSPELS OF MARY - MARVIN MEYER, THE FOREMOST SCHOLAR OF THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, TRANSLATES AND INTRODUCES THE GNOSTIC AND NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS THAT REVEAL THE STORY AND IMPORTANCE OF MARY MAGDALENE.

Contact: Laina Adler (415) 477-4409
laina.adler@harpercollins.com

Almost a year after the original publication of The Da Vinci Code comes THE
GOSPELS OF MARY, the ultimate resource for those who have deciphered the code but now seek the texts and truth behind it. Written and translated by Gnostic text expert Marvin Meyer, THE GOSPELS OF MARY is the most accessible text available to help interested readers parse fact from fiction and come to their own conclusions on all matters relating to the life of Mary Magdalene.

Marvin Meyer is your resource for a "Where Are We Now" retrospective story on the impact of The Da Vinci Code. Due to this influential book, for nearly a year Mary and her place within the circle of Jesus' disciples has been a topic of fervent interest and discussion.

"...[Mary's] story is captivating because it encapsulates major unresolved issues facing Christianity -- the role of women in the church, the place of human sexuality, and the yearning for the feminine aspect of the Divine." [Christian Science Monitor | Nov.14]

THE GOSPELS OF MARY is relevant right now.

--Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, uses the Gospel of Mary as a major plot device.

--"Sales of The Da Vinci Code continue to top 100,000 copies a week, according to Nielsen BookScan." [Publishers Weekly | Feb. 9]

--With regards to sales of The Da Vinci Code and related books, Margaret
Maupin, senior buyer at the Tattered Cover in Denver, CO stated, "Bookbuyers are interested in the mysteries, but they don't necessarily want another novel -- they want the truth..." [Publishers Weekly | Feb. 9]

--Elaine Pagels' recent book Beyond Belief relies heavily on Meyer's translation of The Gospel of Thomas, and has renewed interest in the "secret gospels" or "Gnostic Gospels."

Please contact Laina Adler at (415) 477-4409 if you'd like more information on THE GOSPELS OF MARY, a copy of the book, or if you'd like to interview author Marvin Meyer.

MORE ABOUT THE BOOK ----THE GOSPELS OF MARY
"Of all the disciples of Jesus, none seems to have been as independent, strong, and close to Jesus as Mary Magdalene." -- from the Introduction

THE GOSPELS OF MARY: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, Companion of Jesus, by Marvin Meyer, is the first collection of the earliest texts, including the Gnostic Gospel of Mary and other texts -- both inside and outside the New Testament -- that describe the life of Mary Magdalene.

Marvin Meyer is the foremost expert on the Nag Hammadi texts and the texts about Jesus outside the New Testament. As he states in the Introduction, these texts unveil the importance of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' beloved disciple and an apostle and evangelist, a figure whose importance for Christianity is only now emerging from the shadows of history. Included are selections from the New Testament Gospels, extracanonical literature, and Gnostic sources, as well as the Gospel of Mary (the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).

Marvin Meyer has translated the major Gnostic texts that place Mary Magdalene at Jesus' right hand and give her high place among his followers. The Mary texts are complemented by an essay from Esther de Boer, a widely respected biblical scholar and expert on Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Mary.

Cumulatively, these texts reveal a vibrant oral tradition in which Mary Magdalene is not only a follower of Jesus but also his companion and closest disciple.

# # #

MARVIN MEYER is the foremost expert on the Nag Hammadi texts and the texts about Jesus outside the New Testament. His books and articles have been translated into Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Japanese, and the Gospel of Thomas, of which his is the standard edition, has been listed as one of the 100 best spiritual books of the 20th century. He is Griset Professor of Bible and Christian Studies and co-chair of the Department of Religious Studies, and director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute, at Chapman University, Orange, California.

ESTHER A. DE BOER is the author of Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth and The Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GOSPELS OF MARY: The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, the Companion
of Jesus
by Marvin Meyer
HarperSanFrancisco; A Division of HarperCollins Publishers
May 2004 | On-sale April 6, 2004 | $17.95 | 128 Pages | ISBN: 006065581X
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

Also on Textweek, Jenee Woodard points to this article on Sojourners:

Bloody Purim & the Bloody Passion
by Rabbi Arthur Waskow

The part that catches my attention is the misrepresentation again of The Passion of the Christ:

For centuries - and now again, in the wake of the film The Passion of the Christ and its pointing at "the Jews" as killers of the Christ - Jews have insisted that Christians look also inward for the impulse toward that killing . . . .

As often, this gives the impression that the film speaks of "the Jews", in inverted commas, as a body hostile to Jesus and who killed Jesus. The film does not speak in this way. There are two people in the film whose Jewish identity is particularly stressed, Jesus and Simon of Cyrene. The term "the Jews" only appears in the expression "king of the Jews". As I have mentioned before, there is no chance of a sensible discussion about the very important issues that surround this film if elements that are not present are imported into it.

---

The NT Gateway's move to a fresh server seems to have done it a lot of good -- it now seems to be faster and more efficient. Meanwhile it seems that the University of Birmingham sites are struggling -- my homepage has been down for days as has the Department of Theology of which it is a part. No doubt these sites will clunk back into action once people at the university return to work tomorrow, but perhaps I will need to think seriously about moving my homepage too to NTGateway.com.

---

Over on Textweek Jenee Woodard notes this new article on Tikkun:

Why did they kill Jesus?
Ched Myers | 04.07.2004

For some reason the text in the article above has got a bit garbled -- letters missing and the like. But you can read a cleaner version on Ched Myers's own site here, though the choice of font colour and background on this one requires a bit more re-think:

Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ,” Anti-Semitism and the Gospel: Mark’s Trial Narrative as Political Parody

Like most other Biblical scholars and theologians, he hated it. Given that my own reaction is rather different from what has become the standard one among academics, I was interested in one element in his article, which confirmed to me something I have suspected about the academic reaction:

One of the many problems with Gibson’s film is that it weaves in strands from all four of our gospel versions (not to mention his own gratuitous additions). Attempts to “harmonize” what are four very different versions of the Jesus story have long been discredited because they give the editor such wide license to pick and choose. This effectively creates a “fifth” gospel—or in Gibson’s case, anti-gospel. The only way to unravel Gibson’s fabric is to examine each gospel separately, in order to see their different emphases and purposes.

If one of the bases for criticizing this film is that it harmonizes the Gospels, then the problem is not with this film but with all the Jesus films with the exception of Jesus (1979), The Gospel According to St Matthew, Matthew and The Gospel of John. Has the harmonizing of the Gospels "long been discredited"? Of course this is the case if one is doing serious historical critical scholarship on the Gospels, but it is not the case when it comes to producing dramatic reworkings of the Jesus story.

When one is looking at The Passion of the Christ it is important to analyze it as film and not as documentary. One of the questions that has been in my mind from the beginning of the controversy is how this film compares to others in the genre. One of the things that has been lacking in much of the critical reaction to the film has been any comparison between The Passion of the Christ and other Jesus films. What is it that is so peculiarly bad about this film as compared with, say, Jesus Christ Superstar or The Miracle Maker? For a properly critical case against this film to be sustained, one requires more sensitivity to the tradition from which it comes.

---

On RogueClassicism, David Meadows reports on his viewing of The Passion of the Christ -- some comments on his view of the Latin.

---

If you are in the UK, don't forget Resurrection on Channel 4 tonight at 6.25 pm:

Resurrection
Was Jesus resurrected or is it all a fanciful story at odds with the modern world? Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, sets out to prove the historical truth of the resurrection on a journey that takes him to the places where the real Jesus lived and died.

---

My web space provider has moved all the NT Gateway materials to a new server, though at the same address. Depending on your ISP, it may take a little before the NT Gateway shows up again, so please be patient. My own, at the moment, is only accepting requests for NTGateway.com and NTGateway.com/weblog but not www.ntgateway.com etc. So if you have any trouble reaching the site, try omitting the www.

In any case, the NTGateway weblog is going to be taking a little Easter break and should be back again next week. I wish you a very happy Easter.

---

Thanks to Holger Szesnat and Stephen Carlson for reminding me of this -- the latest issue of JBL is now available to SBL members. You will need to enter your membership number to view it, or wait a few months before it goes free to all:

Journal of Biblical Literature 123.1 (Spring 2004)

The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri: “Not Without Honor Except in Their Hometown”?
ELDON JAY EPP

Pilgrimage Imagery in the Returns in Ezra
MELODY D. KNOWLES

Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering
TROY W. MARTIN

Paul’s Masculinity
JENNIFER LARSON

Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23–25)
JENNIFER A. GLANCY

A Pre-Deuteronomistic Bicolon in 1 Samuel 12:21?
BILL T. ARNOLD

Book Reviews

In particular, Eldon Epp's article, his SBL Atlanta 2003 Presidential Address, is essential reading.

---

Christianity Today has posted this review of the ABC Peter Jennings special Jesus and Paul:

Jesus and Paul: Looking at a Journalistic Approach to Christianity's Beginnings
A full review of ABC's Jesus and Paul: The Word and the Witness
By Darrell L. Bock

The review is detailed and on the whole sympathetic, though Bock thinks that some things were overdone and other things were not stressed enough:

Inevitably, such specials produce a kind of cacophony of opinion, where one might end up with the impression that no one can really know what happened, since the scholars do not agree. Many of the facts appear to be a matter of debate and widely diverse opinion. So how much can we really know? Most viewers have little idea that the scholars represent vastly different camps, even as they hear them disagree. The differences reinforce a popular perception that when it comes to religion everyone sees what they want to see. So it is all a matter of individual opinion and choice . . . . .

. . . . . In sum, what do we say about Jesus and Paul special? It was an informative and engaging three hours, an achievement for such a topic, trying to balance the many competing ideas and numerous sub-themes.

The Jesus section was improved from its original effort. There was more balance and nuance, although the issues of personal righteousness and sin are still mostly subsumed under concerns that are more political and global . . . . .

. . . . . The section on Paul has three key foci that are overdrawn: that Paul thought the end was near, that he was an innovator rather than a developer of the faith when it came to the Jewish elements and Gentiles, and that his conflict with James and Peter lasted much of his career. Still there is much here worth seeing and hearing. Paul was a brilliant developer and reflector on the message of Jesus. His influence on the faith has been immense. His defense of Gentile inclusion marked the faith and kept its dynamic moving as he reached out to people unlike himself but for whom he saw hope that Jesus was the answer. One hopes the church never loses sight of that great lesson from the great apostle.

---

Charlotte Allen comments on the ABC Peter Jennings special Jesus and Paul on beliefnet. She did not like it:

Great Story, Never Told
By focusing so much on political motivations, ABC's 'Jesus and Paul' misses rich narrative and cosmic themes of Paul's story.
By Charlotte Allen

The show's relatively short section on Jesus seem to be mostly outtakes from the 2000 special. It is clear in parts that the Jesus segments were taped before the release of Gibson's movie. Jennings' scholars, some of whom could be found arguing on the side of the politically correct, denouncing Gibson for depicting some Jews as complicit in Jesus' death, are seen in "Jesus and Paul" agreeing that Annas, Caiaphas, and their Temple cronies were corrupt, kickback-taking Godfather figures who probably wanted to get rid of the popular prophet Jesus. One scholar points out that crucifixion was "the most horrible form of torturing and killing that the Romans could devise"--suggesting that Gibson's emphasis on the blood and cruelty was not so misplaced after all . . . .

. . . . . Paul comes off in the Jennings special as an ornery, misogynistic loner who stayed on the move because he couldn't get along with anyone and had weird views about sex (like Jesus, Paul condemned fornication, and he did not approve of homosexual acts). Paul's letters and the Acts paint a different picture: of a gregarious missionary who usually traveled with friends--Silas, Barnabas, Titus, Philemon, Luke--and who treasured his strong-willed female followers such as Phoebe, the deaconess of Corinth, Priscilla from Rome, and Lydia, the wealthy dye-merchant who was a patron of one of his churches. None of these vivid New Testament characters makes it into the Jennings special . . . .

Unfortunately (or not?), it is unlikely that I will ever see it so will not be able to comment.

---

Thanks to Mark Elliott for alerting me to this latest edition to the Bible and Interpretation Essays on the Passion:

A Review of the Passion
I find it offensive when much of the marketing of the movie has insisted on its biblical accuracy when, in fact, much of what's good and bad about the movie comes either from an 18th-century nun or from Mel Gibson's own imagination.
By Jason Byassee
Pastor, Shady Grove United Methodist Church

Byassee notes that the film is dependent on the Bible in some respects but less dependent in others. Indeed he makes the interesting comment that "This movie is, in fact, most interesting when it departs from the biblical narrative". But one or two minor comments on points he makes. On the scourging he remarks:

The other example is more brutal—the scourging of Jesus is mentioned in two places, Matt 27:26 and Mark 15:15, and then only briefly. In the movie, this is the most brutal part of it—it goes on forever, with blood everywhere and maniacal guards laughing as they torture Jesus brutally. Again, here is one verse, greatly expanded upon. If asked whether these scenes are biblical, the strongest possible response would be “sort of.”

The scourging also appears in both the other Gospels, Luke 23.16 and 23.22 and John 19.1 and it is from these that The Passion of the Christ derives its sequence, with flogging before sentencing to crucifixion. Byassee also comments:

The final thing to notice is this—the Bible doesn’t actually focus much on what happened to Jesus in his execution. The Gospel just says, “[A]nd they crucified him, one on his right, and one on his left.” There is very little in the way of gory detail there; even when it describes Jesus’ torture, it spends more time on the soldiers’ mocking him than on the blood or his agony.

That is true, but I think this point is at least partly mitigated by the fact that the ancients knew what "they crucified him" meant and we can little appreciate the full horror and scandal that they would have heard when they heard those words.

Byassee also writes:

In the movie, it is Caiaphas the high priest who shouts at Jesus on the cross, “If you are the son of God come down from the cross.” However, he’s not the one who says that in the Bible; he’s not at the cross. And in historical point of fact, none of the Jewish leaders could have been present at an execution because of the biblical belief that contact with the dead defiles.

I have seen this claim made in other reviews of the film and I am puzzled by it. Mark 15.31 places the "chief priests" (οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς) at the cross at just this point. These "chief priests" are the ones who have been present throughout (Mark 14.1, 14.10, 14.43, 14.53, 14.55, 15.1, 3, 11). They are likewise responsible for the cry in Matthew's parallel in Matt. 27.42 (cf. Luke 23.35, "rulers").

Byassee argues that the violence was excessive and possibly too much so: "Was the actual torture that violent?" Two thoughts on this. First, Josephus describes the scourging of Jesus' namesake, Jesus ben Ananias as so vicious that "his bones were laid bare" (War 6.5.3). And he survived. The scourging in The Passion of the Christ is nothing like that bad. Second, crucifixion is described in ancient sources as a matter of prisoners writhing in agony (need to check the source) and there is nothing of this in the film.

Those are just a few comments on parts that I wanted to disagree with. But the review overall has some wise remarks and helpful perspectives. His conclusion:

This movie has its brilliant moments. I had low expectations based on critical reviews from religious sources I trust, yet I sobbed several times and emerged changed somehow. It also had material that made me want to pull my hair out, mostly in its refusal to depict the Jewish leaders differently. The most interesting stuff was in fact the stuff not in the Bible, though its marketers would have suggested otherwise. In all, it seems to me like a good sermon! It challenged me, made me think, moved me, made me mad, I didn’t agree with all of it; in fact, I strongly disagreed sometimes, but hey—if I can have that effect, even partially on a Sunday morning, then maybe I’ve done my job. So I suggest Mel has also done his.

---

I have serviced my Gospel of Mark pages, removing and replacing dead links, including to information on the Kata Markon e-list at Jeffrey Gibson's request. I have also added there a link to the SBL Mark Group web page. I have previously blogged this but had not got round to adding a link on my Mark page.

---

Thanks to David Mackinder for the link to this review from the Wall Street Journal of the American ABC special on Jesus and Paul:

The ABC of Holy Week
With "Jesus and Paul," Peter Jennings gets it right.
BY ROBERT LOUIS WILKEN

But this is a show for serious-minded viewers, scholarly yet respectful of belief, informative yet entertaining. It tells the story of Jesus and Paul in language believers and critics alike can recognize--indeed not too differently from the way it has been told for centuries.

Wilken comments on "the pronouncement of one 'expert' that Jesus was 'illiterate'" as a particularly egregious historical blunder. I am guessing, though, that this was something said by John Dominic Crossan who certainly claims this in his written work. While many would disagree with Crossan on this point, it's not a "historical blunder".

---

British readers will know the Tory MP Ann Widdecombe well and will not be surprised to see that her views on the controversy about The Passion of the Christ are themselves pretty outspoken. Thanks to David Mackinder for the link to this article from the New Statesman:

Why the Jews are wrong
Observations on Mel Gibson and The Passion
By Ann Widdecombe

After a some-of-my-best-friends-are-Jewish style introduction, Widdecombe writes:

What with Pharaoh, the diaspora, the pogroms and the Holocaust, it is not surprising that Jews are alert for any outbreak of ill-feeling; and the rest of us should be vigilant on their behalf. But there is a line between alertness and over-sensitivity, and they have well and truly crossed it in their reaction to this film. They cannot credibly propose to make it a crime to deny the reality of the Holocaust, while themselves denying the reality of a shameful episode in their history. You do not have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah to recognise the illegality of His trial or to wince at His suffering. A bit of wincing would not come amiss from the leaders of the Jewish community whose principal concern appears to be not that Christ suffered, but that Mel Gibson should have the gall to portray those sufferings.

Where does one start with such a catalogue of error and confusion? It is probably unnecessary for me to mention these things, but here goes anyway. (1) The title, which may not be Widdecombe's own, is especially unhelpful. A rule of thumb: the negative use of the term "the Jews" in dialogue focusing on anti-Semitism is a very bad sign. (2) To equate holocaust denial with asking critical historical questions about the Gospels is outrageous. (3) Talk about "the illegality of His trial" simply begs the question. One of the key issues for all scholars is what to make of such historical difficulties. (4) The implication that it is only Jews who have expressed concerns about the film is incorrect. Some of its most outspoken critics, for example, are Christians. This article is careless and inflammatory.

Update: Jim Davila comments in Paleojudaica. Specifically, he draws attention to Widdecombe's remark that "it is difficult to see how Gibson could give the Jews a fairer deal". And he answers:

How about by leaving out the fantasy material from the Emmerich visions? And he could even have left out altogether that "most damning line of all" (most damning to whom?) from Matthew's Gospel, which almost certainly was made up by the writer of Matthew. (But it's in the Bible! How could he have left it out? Well, for starters, Mark, Luke, and John did.) As for the omitting of the subtitle, want to make any bets on how long it takes for the line to be added back in when the subtitles are retranslated into other languages? I haven't seen the movie yet and I don't know whether I'll think it's anti-Semitic, but I know that those two things are there.

I wish that Gibson had omitted the line from Matt. 27.25, though I must admit that I am only taking people's word for it that it is there at all. I was listening out very carefully for it on each viewing and you can just hear Caiaphas mutter something in a distance shot after Pilate has washed his hands. I assume that it is that line, but my impression is that it would be very difficult to subtitle in the film's present form, so I am not too concerned that it is going to get added in again. But this is subject to correction, of course. I am going to see the film again tomorrow so I am going to have another look and listen. Can any readers shed any light here? Can anyone actually hear what Caiaphas is saying at that point?

On Jim's other point, about Catherine Emmerich's visions, I think the key question is whether the ones that are used are themselves anti-Jewish. In other words, was the film itself influenced by her anti-Semitism? William Fulco (translator and theological consultant) and Benedict Fitzgerald (co-screenwriter) emphatically deny this (see the blog entry on this). I think there may be grounds for their denial. I have recently begun reading Catherine Emmerich's Dolorous Passion and was particularly struck by the similarities and differences between her depiction and the film's depiction of Simon of Cyrene. It is clear that the film is influenced by Emmerich at this point, specifically Simon's exhorting the soldiers to leave Jesus alone, but crucially where Emmerich clearly depicts Simon as a pagan, Gibson insists that this heroic figure was a Jew.

Update: See now Jim Davila's additional comments in Paleojudaica, drawing attention to Beliefnet's description: "In a very brief scene, money is seen changing hands, with the implication that people are being paid to testify against Jesus" and quoting from Emmerich as follows:

"The Dolorous Passion" says "The High Priests now sent for those whom they knew to be the most bitterly opposed to Jesus, and desired them to assemble the witnesses ...The proud Sadducees ...whom Jesus had so often reproved before the people, were actually dying for revenge. They hastened to all the inns to seek out those persons whom they knew to be enemies of our Lord, and offered them bribes in order to secure their appearance."

The reference is to Dolorous Passion Chapter IV. On this, let me first say that it is one of those parts of the film that I think is regrettable. I would add it to my list of things that I would have preferred not to have seen because it inevitably evokes, for those familiar with Emmerich, the fuller more troubling context there. Having said that, it is not clear that the film carries forward anything of that context. The brief scene depicts someone looking rather puzzled at the arrival of the man at his door; there is nothing of hastening to the inns, seeking out known enemies of Jesus etc. In other words, I think this falls into that category of material that I find more careless than malicious on the filmmakers' part.

Jim also comments on the throwing off the bridge just after the arrest, also from Emmerich. I'm not sure what to make of that other than to comment that it is an element in the brutalising of Jesus that is evident throughout the film, though the Roman brutality is far, far greater in this film than anything else. What The Passion of the Christ uses this scene for is Jesus' encounger with Judas Iscariot at the foot of the bridge, a kind of parallel to Jesus' looking at Peter after his denial.

Further, Ed Cook emails Jim with the following comment:

With reference to your note, "Mark also says he couldn't hear the blood libel line from Matthew in the movie." I heard it; Caiaphas speaks it, in Aramaic, in the middle of a throng yelling "Let him be crucified!" (yitstalev), so it's easy to miss. There was no subtitle. Do the foreign versions make their translations from the English subtitles (as I think likely) or do they translate them directly from the soundtrack? If the latter, do they include some of the Latin by-play among the soldiers at the scourging, which also wasn't subtitled?

It is interesting to hear that it is possible to hear this line; put my failure down to my worse than elementary Aramaic! But my point is that the way in which this scene is filmed, with the long shot and the cacophony, would make it difficult to subtitle straightforwardly.

Jim goes on to comment:

As far as I know there are no translations of the subtitles yet. When someone gets around to them I don't know how they will proceed. I am just confident that if ideological anti-Semites know that the blood libel line is there in the Aramaic, they will be sure to include in their translation, no matter what the English subtitles say.

That may be right but I hope that it is not. Presumably there are lots of translations of the subtitles already for the showings in the international market, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish etc.?

Incidentally, if it's Caiaphas saying the line, that's an important departure from Matthew 27:25, which has "all the people" saying it. Instead of being an impulsive cry by a riotous crowd, it becomes a statement by the high priest himself.

I would read the departure differently. The very reason that Matt. 27.25 can be so troubling is its invocation of blood guilt by and on "all the people". It is that factor that has allowed the line to have such a particularly toxic effect in the history of anti-Semitism. But my strong preference would be for this to be omitted altogether, Caiaphas or crowd, subtitle or not, along with Pilate's hand-washing and several other features in the film.

Let me just repeat my position on this film lest I am misread. My view remains that while there are troubling elements present here, as there are in all the Jesus films, the case that it is anti-Semitic has often been greatly overstated, and features that argue against its anti-Semitism are routinely being ignored.

---

Thanks to Gail Dawson for the link to this article from the Washington Post:

Ideas About Christ's Death Surveyed
Growing Minority: Jews Responsible
By Alan Cooperman

The poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center in Washington is the first statistical evidence that the movie's box-office success may be associated with an increase in anti-Jewish feeling, although social scientists cautioned that cause and effect are not clear.

In the March 17 to 21 telephone survey of 1,703 randomly selected adults, 26 percent said Jews were responsible for Christ's death, up from 19 percent in an ABC News poll that asked the same question in 1997.

I would want to add that it is not just that "cause and effect are not clear". It is also impossible to view the film without knowledge of the controversy that surrounds it, a controversy that has tended to pose the question in stark and often very unhelpful ways. And I am afraid that the question posed in this statistical survey is as good as useless:

"Do you feel the Jews were responsible for Christ's death or not?"

What New Testament scholar would even be able to answer such a question? One would need to know, "What do you mean by 'the Jews'?" Some Jews, many Jews, Judeans, inhabitants of Jerusalem in the first century, some Judean leaders, the High Priest, his sanhedrin or council? What do you mean by "responsible for"? Primarily responsible? Played a part in? Many New Testament scholars, perhaps the majority, think that Caiaphas, for example, may well have had some involvement in the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion; how would they answer that question? In other words, this statistical survey seems to me to be unhelpful. However, the Washington Post article itself adds:

. . . . . Thus, researchers said, it is unclear whether the movie and its attendant publicity are causing a change in attitudes, reflecting a change, or both.

Despite predictions that the movie would spark violence against Jews, the Anti-Defamation League reported in March that the number of anti-Semitic incidents across the country in 2003 remained the same as in 2002.

Moreover, some previous opinion surveys have indicated that "The Passion of the Christ" is improving, not harming, Christian-Jewish relations. In a March 5 to March 9 survey of 1,003 adults nationwide, San Francisco-based pollster Gary Tobin found that 83 percent said the film had no impact on their view of contemporary Jews. Two percent said the movie had made them "more likely" to blame Jews, but 9 percent said it had made them less likely to do so.

---

I know that many American readers will have watched the ABC special on Jesus and Paul yesterday. New Testament scholar Darrell Bock interviews its presenter, Peter Jennings, in Christianity Today:

Peter Jennings Goes Back to the Bible
The ABC news anchor talks about Monday's three-hour special, Jesus and Paul: The Word and the Witness.
Interview by Darrell Bock

---

According to Christianity Today's Weblog, this week's Time magazine has put together "one of the best religion cover stories the magazine—or any mainstream news magazine—has ever done." Praise indeed. The link is here:

Time asks why Jesus died

But it's only available to subscribers. Christianity Today Weblog comments on and excerpts some of it for us, though:

Weblog can't do much more than encourage people to read this story, which reveals a thorough knowledge of the subject. There are some great lines from John R.W. Stott, as well as comments from Mark Noll, Jack Graham, Frederica Mathewes-Green, Al Mohler, Randy Balmer, and others. The main voices, of course, are those of Anselm and Abelard, with a healthy dose of Augustine, Calvin, and Luther thrown in, too . . .

. . . . . "The film's stance on atonement could best be described as substitutionary (that initial Isaiah quote sets the theme) with a strong dose of Catholic Passion piety (the very gory details), a pinch of exemplarism (the flashbacks to Jesus' teachings) and those sulfurous whiffs of the ancient good-vs.-evil model," van Biema summarizes, after he has explained those stances more thoroughly above.

I'd say there's more than "a pinch of exemplarism" in The Passion of the Christ -- the theme is hammered home repeatedly at the climax of the film in the crucifixion scene. I would also argue that there are more than "whiffs" of the Christus Victor motif -- the whole film is cast as a battle between Jesus and the devil and the devil, right at the end, gets cast to the pit of hell. But it is refreshing to see someone at least acknowledging that the film's view of the atonement is more than just penal substititution.

---

Thanks to Airton José da Silva of the Pontifical University of Campinas, SP, Brazil for sending over this excellent page of Passion of the Christ links, most of them in English but some in Portuguese:

A Paixão de Cristo

I have added a link to my page on The Passion of the Christ.

---

On Paleojudaica, Jim Davila blogs this Reuters article:

Jewish remains give clues on crucifixion
By Megan Goldin

It focuses on the remains of Yehohanan Ben Hagkol and features comments from both Joe Zias and Martin Hengel. It's the first time I've seen comments from Hengel in the media on this topic in spite of the fact that he wrote the definitive book on the subject, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross:

Professor Martin Hengel, a leading scholar of crucifixions from Tubingen University in Germany, said thousands of captured Jewish rebels were crucified by the Romans around Jerusalem during the first century, when Jesus lived . . . .

. . . . "It was used because it was so appalling. It was very painful and everybody could see the suffering. It must have been very humiliating too, hanging naked at the cross," Hengel said.

One of Joe Zias's comments raises a question in my mind:

Gibson's film shows Jesus being hammered to the cross through his hands, in line with the traditional view depicted in religious icons and paintings since the Middle Ages.

Zias said this reflects theology rather than reality. Jesus, like other victims of crucifixion, would either have had his hands tied to the cross, or been nailed through the wrist.

"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear. It has to be done through the wrists," Zias said.

I understand the anatomical point here, but if victims could be tied, might they not also have been nailed through the palms of the hands? Is the anatomical point the only one in favour of nailing through the wrists and if so, would not the possibility of victims being tied partly negate that? I wonder whether those filmic depictions of Jesus being nailed through the wrists (from The Day That Christ Died in 1980 onwards) are as much influenced by the Turin Shroud as by the anatomical evidence, not least given the fact that interest in the Shroud was intensifying in this period.

Update: Jim Davila comments on my comment in Paleojudaica.

---

The Boston Globe reviews The Gospel of John and compares it with The Passion of the Christ. Would that a few more had attempted this. Although I have been making comparisons off and on in the blog for a while, I think that this is the first time I have seen it done properly in a review. Perhaps most strikingly, the reviewer thinks that The Gospel of John, because of its source material, ends up rather more anti-Semitic than The Passion of the Christ:

'Gospel' aims for that old-time religion, but where's the passion?
By Ty Burr, Globe Staff, 4/2/2004

"The Gospel of John" is to "The Passion of the Christ" as tap water is to parboiled sacramental wine . . . . .

. . . . The sad truth is that director Philip Saville and writer John Goldsmith have made a picture book rather than a film, one that leans so heavily on Christopher Plummer's placid voice-over narration as to be cinematically inert. Peopled with earnest overactors and featuring a Jesus who has the benevolent, unruffled smile of a high school grief counselor, "Gospel" is as dull as the desert sands . . . . .

. . . . . That sense of duty keeps "Gospel" a puppet show, though. The filming has the flat sheen of a telefilm, and the acting rarely rises above the community theater level. The thoughtful elegance of Jeff Danna's score is the movie's subtlest aspect; lead actor Cusick, exuding the animation of a 3-D winking-Jesus postcard, is its biggest missed opportunity . . . . .

. . . . . The differences with "The Passion of the Christ" are instructive, though. "Gospel" errs on the side of gentility, showing us a mere shadow of a whip-wielding centurion and a trickle of blood on the Savior's brow, while its presentation of the crucifixion is more in line with physical probability (Jesus carries only the crossbar of the cross to Golgotha; the nails pierce his wrists rather than his hands). But the film is also more troubling than "Passion" in the unexamined anti-Semitism it takes from its source. On one level, this merely reflects bad acting: As the head Pharisee, Hippola, Richard Lintern literally twirls his mustache in the tradition of Snidely Whiplash. But where Gibson made sure to provide "good Jews" and "bad Jews," Saville gives us all bad Jews all the time. "Gospel" is so removed from ethnological reality that when one of the apostles addresses Jesus as "rabbi," Plummer has to inform us that "this word means `teacher.' "

"Gospel" gets the letter, all right, but not the spirit. "The Passion of the Christ," meanwhile, revels in an amped-up version of Jesus' death. The movie that effectively conveys the passion of the man's life remains to be made.

One or two comments. First, I disagree with this reviewer over Cusick. I think he's excellent. It's a real achievement to make the Johannine Jesus warm, animated and engaging and he manages it. Second, on the issue of the carrying of the cross, The Gospel of John has a liberty that The Passion of the Christ does not -- there is no Simon of Cyrene in John's Gospel so Jesus can be depicted carrying the cross beam like his fellow victims. Third, I am intrigued by the reviewer's comments on the alleged anti-Semitism in The Gospel of John. It seems to me that the film grappled with this issue explicitly in several ways: (1) the pre-publicity for the film often discussed the issue, using the advisory board to comment; (2) the extra features on the DVD similarly attempt to deal with the issue (an opportunity for Icon for their Passion DVD release?); (3) they self-consciously chose the Good News Bible so that they could use the translation "Jewish leaders" rather than "the Jews"; (4) they added a pre-credit statement about when John was written and what it reflected. Given all this, it is interesting to hear that for that reviewer, he still finds it "more troubling than 'Passion'", though I had to look up Snidely Whiplash.

---

There's an interesting article in today's Observer on Matera, where location shooting for The Passion of the Christ took place:

Italy's cavemen cashing in on Passion of Mel
Sophie Arie discovers how a Hollywood religious blockbuster is raising the impoverished town of Matera from the dead

. . . . . . 'People seem shocked at the violence,' said Antonello Scazzariello, an 11-year-old spiky-haired boy who helped chase Judas in the film after he betrayed Christ. 'But when you've been on set, you see it differently. You know it's all fake.'

'There were 20 barrels of "blood" kept on hand in a cave,' said Rosario Gagliardi, a 42-year-old government official who played a disciple. 'When I saw them lash the Christ in the face with a whip, I didn't flinch because I knew it was made of wool.'

The extras laugh as they remember how, between each shoot, Caviezel's hair was rearranged and fresh blood applied from a squeezy bottle.

In fact, while the whippings, lacerated skin and nails through hands are all the masterful efforts of make-up artists, the Italian extras, paid 60 to 90 euros a day, appear to have endured greater physical suffering than the better-known figures in the biblical story.

Two in particular, who hung on crosses alongside Caviezel's double for hours, got so cold that gas burners and fans had to be set up to keep their goosepimples away.

Scazzariello, who had shoe polish and mud matted into his hair for a 'poor and dirty' effect, says he had to wash it 20 times with kitchen cleaner before it was clean.

Despite the physical inconvenience, most of the extras say they would happily play again. 'We got dirty. But the hardest thing was suppressing the giggles,' said Antonietta Scazzariello, who has played in six films in 25 years. 'There's no work,' she said. 'So it's a good thing people like making films here. At least I can earn a bit of cash that way.' . . . . .

The article also features a link to the web site of Matera, which has lots of pictures taken during the filming. One of the most interesting -- and one I have not seen before -- is a picture showing Mel Gibson positioning the nail in the palm of the Caviezel's hand. You will recall that it has been said that it is Gibson himself who symbolically hits the nails into Jesus' hands:

The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson in Matera

---

This notice is posted on behalf of Dr G. H. Van Kooten of the University of Groningen:

Full PhD-Scholarship at the Faculty of Theology & Religious Studies at the University of Groningen

Research Groups: Jewish and Christian Traditions (Old Testament, Early Judaism, and New Testament & Early Christianity)& Religion, Representation, and Power (History of Religions and History of Christianity)

The Faculty of Theology & Religious Studies of the University of Groningen announces a search to grant a full, prestigious Ubbo Emmius PhD-Scholarship, granted by the University of Groningen. As an Ubbo Emmius student you will undertake your research within one of the research schools or institutes of the University of Groningen.

This Scholarship is available in two of the Faculty’s research programmes, the research programme in Jewish and Christian Traditions, and the research programme in Religion, Representation, and Power.

The research group of Jewish and Christian Traditions consists of Professor Ed Noort (Old Testament, Archaeology & Biblical Theology), dr Jacques van Ruiten (Old Testament & Early Judaism), Professor Florentino García Martínez (Early Judaism & Qumran), dr Eibert Tigchelaar (Early Judaism & Qumran), Professor Gerard Luttikhuizen (New Testament & Gnosticism), and dr George van Kooten (New Testament & Hellenism). There is also close cooperation with Professor Jan Bremmer (Graeco-Roman Religion).

Excellent and suitable candidates, who have completed a relevant MA, are encouraged to apply.

Please send your application to Mrs. M.C. Buigel-de Witte, m.c.buigel-de.witte@theol.rug.nl, before May 1st, 2004.

Your application should include and/or address the following issues: a curriculum vitae, a title of proposed research, a brief research proposal not exceeding 1,500 words, consisting of a short description of the project (presentation and definition of the principal questions and problems), position of the project within the discipline (can new insights be expected), short description of the corpus of texts/documents upon which it is based; motivated demarcation of this corpus (if applicable), motivation for the project proposed, methodological approach, prospective time-table, and a specification of referents.

Please send also a copy of your MA-thesis by regular mail to: Mrs. M.C. Buigel-de Witte, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, Oude Boteringestraat 38, 9712 GK Groningen, The Netherlands.

The PhD Scholarship entails a 4-year fixed term contract of 1,295 Euro per month. After one year an assessment takes places.

The University of Groningen was founded in 1614 and is a strong, interdisciplinary university in the North of the Netherlands. There is a direct railway connection between Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) and Groningen.

---

William Loader, Professor of New Testament at Murdoch University, Australia, has published his thoughts on The Passion of the Christ

“The Passion of the Christ” and the Passion of Jesus
A Reflection on Mel Gibson’s Film
William Loader

Like many other critics, Loader speaks of the film's "gratuitous violence" and of "R rated violence designed to give a buzz". I remain puzzled by this kind of reaction to the film and am currently writing a short article explaining why I think the film's violence is not gratuitous and certainly not pornographic.

---

Also as part of Beliefnet's Jesus and Paul coverage, this excerpt from Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament

Homosexuality: Rebellion Against God
A scholar of Paul explains how the great Apostle understood--and decried--homosexuality.
By Richard B. Hays

---

Today's Christian features an interview with Robin Griffith-Jones about Paul. Griffith-Jones is Master of the Temple Church in London and features on the forthcoming American TV programme Jesus and Paul. He also has a book coming out called The Gospel According to Paul:

Letting Paul Speak
Author Robin Griffith-Jones wants to help us rediscover the humanity of the early church's most influential convert.
Interview by Melody Pugh

---

Regular readers will remember the appallingly titled "Scholarly Smackdown" featuring Ben Witherington III and John Dominic Crossan on Beliefnet over The Passion of the Christ. Now, there's another one, this time in connection with the Jesus and Paul television programme and again featuring Witherington but this time with Elaine Pagels:

Scholarly Smackdown: Did Paul Distort Christianity?
With Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III
To help make sense of the scholarly debates about Jesus and Paul, we asked two of the preeminent scholars to email each other about early Christianity (while letting us peek in). Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton, is the author of the bestselling Beyond Belief and The Gnostic Gospels. Ben Witherington III is professor of New Testament interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky and author of The Paul Quest and numerous other books.

So far Round 1 is available. Remember to read this for free while you can -- Beliefnet have a habit of "going premium" on their content after a while.

Labels: Elaine Pagels

---

And Marcus Borg is in on the act too at Beliefnet's Jesus and Paul:

Paul's Unconventional Wisdom
The Apostle Paul gets mixed press, but his most important messages parallel the teachings of Jesus.
Marcus Borg

Many passages that form the negative image are in the six letters that may not have been written by Paul. When they are set aside, Paul emerges as a much more radical and subversive thinker than the negative stereotype suggests.

He was a remarkable man . . . . .

---

Beliefnet have also excerpted part of N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997):

Who Founded Christianity: Jesus or Paul?
When Paul preached the gospel, he was consciously implementing the achievement of Jesus, not founding a separate religion.
By N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham

---

Beliefnet continues adding features on Paul with a nice new short article:

Christianity Without Paul
What would the religion be like if the Apostle Paul had never lived?
By Bart Ehrman

What would have happened had Paul never lived? One could argue that the vast majority of people who today call themselves Christian would still be worshiping the gods of Greece and Rome, and Christianity would be one of the small sects within Judaism, with little impact on the world around it.

Lots more is available on the site in connection with the forthcoming special Jesus and Paul and I will be linking to some of the other items later.

---

The full text of Filología Neotestamentaria Volume XIV (2001) is now available on the BSW site. They have been working hard there recently and these issues are now coming regularly:

Filología Neotestamentaria 14 (2001)

Stanley E. PORTER and Matthew BROOK O.DONNELL, «The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint: An Exercise in Hallidayan Linguistics» , Vol. 14 (2001) 3-41 [HTML] [PDF]

Patrick A. TILLER, «Reflexive Pronouns in the New Testament» , Vol.14 (2001) 43-63 [HTML] [PDF]

Paul DANOVE, «A Comparison Of The Usage Of Akouw And Akouw- Compounds
In The Septuagint And New Testament» , Vol.14 (2001) 65-86 [HTML] [PDF]

Thomas J. KRAUS, «Grammatisches Problembewusstsein Als Regulativ Für Angemessene Sprachbeurteilung . Das Beispiel Der Griechischen Negation Und 2PETR» , Vol.14 (2001) 87-100 [HTML] [PDF]

James SWETNAM, «The Context Of The Crux At Hebrews 5,7-8» , Vol.14 (2001) 101-120 [HTML] [PDF]

J. DUNCAN and M. DERRETT, «Palin: The Ass Again (Mk 11,3d)» , Vol.14 (2001) 121-130 [HTML] [PDF]

Josep RIUS-CAMPS, «Las Variantes Del Texto Occidental De Los Hechos De Los Apóstoles (XIII) (Hch 7,23-8,1a)» , Vol.14 (2001) 131-148 [HTML] [PDF]

---

I have serviced the NT Gateway Historical Jesus: Books and Articles page, deleting dead URLs (e.g. Tom Thatcher's articles) and changing the URLs of several others, all now marked with "New URL" in red. So everything should now be fully functioning.

---

Also courtesy of Bible and Interpretation, this link to an article on beliefnet:

St. Paul, Friend or Enemy of Women?
It's too simplistic to call the apostle a patriarchal misogynist on the one hand--or to praise him unreservedly on the other.
By Rosemary Radford Ruether

It is a short article with this summary at the end

What Christians need to see today is that both options existed in early Christianity. In Paul's own writings, he assumed that women could teach and lead churches, although he wished them to do so with the traditional sign of women's secondary status on their heads. In the next generation Pauline Christians split between those who wanted to continue this ministry of women, linked to a radical view of women's new autonomy in Christ, and those who wished to suppress it altogether. But in the church for which Timothy wrote both views still coexisted in the same church.

One element in the article that may be a little overstated is here:

But the passage in I Corinthians 14: 33b-35 where it is said that women should not speak at all is generally conceded by scholars today to have been an interpolation from the next generation after Paul. It was not part of the original text.

My own reading of the situation would be that it is not "generally conceded"; some think it an interpolation and some do not. The comment that "It was not part of the original text" might lead some readers to think that there is more text critical evidence for its omission than there is. I am not a text critic, but if I recall correctly there are no texts of 1 Corinthians that lack those verses though they are not always found at precisely the same point.

---

Bible and Interpretation references this article from SFGate.com:

Arab censors giving 'Passion' wide latitude
Gibson film packs Mideast movie houses
Charles Levinson

Habib Malik, a professor of history and cultural studies at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, said the allegations of anti-Semitism that have surrounded the film are undoubtedly part of the film's appeal in Lebanon.

"Word got around that this movie was upsetting a lot of people in the Jewish community in the West, and people here are predisposed to be anti- Israel, and anti-Jewish in general, and I think that's one of the reasons why people have flocked to see it," said Malik, who first watched the film with Mel Gibson and a select group of intellectuals and religious figures in Washington.

Malik said he hopes that even if people see the film for the wrong reasons, it may still have a positive influence by exposing Muslims to different religious viewpoints.

Some of this article makes pretty depressing reading.

---

The beliefnet article previously noted mentions some films which may be of interest. One already completed and shown in selected cinemas in the UK is Man Dancin', directed by Norman Stone. This appears to be in the tradition of Jesus of Montreal and the like -- the modern day Passion play is re-staged (this time in Glasgow) and the hero's destiny begins to mirror Jesus's. There is an official web site here and a pretty lengthy, seven to eight minute trailer:

Man Dancin'

See also the IMDb entry.

The next mentioned is Regardt van den Bergh's The Lamb. The most informative piece I can find on this is in Variety from September 2003:

$20M leap of faith
Christelle De Jager

"The Lamb," a $20 million biblical epic, is scheduled to start shooting in South Africa in December, exec produced by former Paramount Pictures president Frank Yablans and directed by Regardt van den Bergh ("The Messiah," "The Nativity").

"The Lamb" portrays a journey of faith by Mattias and his son Joel, intertwined with encounters with Jesus. It will be shot in Israel, Tunisia and South Africa and will be one of the biggest projects to come out of South Africa.

You may recognise the director's name from the Visual Bible's 1996 outing, Matthew.

And speaking of the Visual Bible, producers also of the recent Gospel of John, the next project is the Gospel of Mark. There is not a lot available on this film at the moment. Reports usually simply say "in development". The beliefnet article says that it will start filming in "a couple of months". So keep watching this space.

Labels: Gospel of Mark film, Visual Bible

---

Beliefnet has this interesting article on Jesus films:

Jesus Movies As Old as the Art Form--With More to Come
By Ted Parks

The article mentions three films which I will blog on separately.

---

Thanks to Helen-Ann Hartley for the link to this BBC News item:

Passion panned by French critics
The Passion of the Christ has been judged "sadistic", "manipulative" and "boring" by French film critics.

---

Tikkun.org has this article in its latest edition:

Loosely Based on a True Story
The Passion of Jesus Christ in Verbal and Visual Media
John Dominic Crossan

In what follows, I raise first the question of historicity. What, in my best scholarly reconstruction, did and did not happen during that execution? What is Roman history and what is Christian parable? I also raise the question of transition from a verbal to a visual medium in any historical story and especially in this one. Finally, I wonder why Christians who believe they have received a gospel inspired by God in fourfold, that is, manifold format, want so regularly to get it all into one single, composite version.

---

Thanks to Jim West on various e-lists for this one. John Dominic Crossan is to appear today on Fresh Air:

Fresh Air Online
As Easter approaches, we take a historical look at crucifixion as a form of execution. We talk with John Dominic Crossan, one of the leading scholars of the historical Jesus, and author of the books The Birth of Christianity and Who Killed Jesus?

It's not on-line yet but should be later today. I'll add a notice here when it is available.

---

Some good news: Hypotyposeis is back! So too is The Synoptic Problem Home Page.

---

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.03.53 has a glowing review of Bart Ehrman's new Loeb Apostolic Fathers:

Bart D. Ehrman (trans.), The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. I: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache. Loeb Classical Library, 24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Pp. 464. ISBN 0-674-99607-0. $21.50.
Reviewed by Benjamin Garstad, Brooklyn College/Columbia University

E.'s edition of the Apostolic Fathers is useful and engaging. I can whole-heartedly advise its purchase to all those interested in the literature of the second century and the development of the Christian church, even those who already own earlier editions and translations.

Spotted on RogueClassicism and Carl Conrad on b-greek.

Labels: b-greek

---

The International Herald Tribune yesterday published the following article:

Mel Gibson revives an old message of hate...
A Jewish View
Michael Lerner

[Read all on one page from this link]

An earlier version of this appeared on Tikkun mail and was subsequently published on 10 March on Tikkun.org as Gibson's The Passion, with the subtitle, "A plea to Christians to Respond with a Gospel of Love and Hope in place of this new fundamentalism".

I was curious about the opening of this article. Something did not look right about it to me:

Mel Gibson unlocked the secret of why Americans have never confronted anti-Semitism in the way that we did with the other great systems of hatred (racism, sexism, homophobia) when he told an American TV audience in February that "the Jews' real complaint isn't with my film ('The Passion of the Christ') but with the Gospels." (emphasis added)

This is given in quotation marks, but did he actually say that? The alleged quotation is from the Diane Sawyer ABC interview of February 16. But only a moment's checking shows that this is a pretty serious misquotation. Here's what Gibson actually said in the interview:

"Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me in this film," Gibson said. "They have a problem with the four Gospels. That's where their problem is." (Source: ABC News; emphasis added)

Now whatever one thinks about Gibson's remark here, it is quite clear that he did not speak about "the Jews' real complaint". Lerner's quotation wrongly gives the impression that Gibson is speaking in toxic fashion about "the Jews" and their opposition to his film. As I have said before, it is precisely because the issue of anti-Semitism is so serious that it is essential that we are careful with our language. It really will not do to misquote in so serious and damning a fashion.

Now this article has already been pretty influential in the press and on the internet. A quick search reveals that it has often been reproduced, and always with the misquotation, e.g. The Globe and Mail reproduce what I imagine is the original Tikkun Mail version; The Metrowest Daily News has the fuller version and so on. But then the misquotation itself gets quoted by others. Take this Christian pastor who uses it as a reason for discouraging people from seeing the film

Addressing the question of whether the movie is anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson told a national TV audience on February 16 that "the Jews' real complaint isn't with my film but with the Gospels." In other words, Mr. Gibson seems himself to believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John blame Christ's death on the Jews. (Wheat Ridge Congregation Pastor's Page)

Or again, it surfaces on BustedHalo.com, The Problem With the Passion, When Hollywood Plays with Hate and History, by Nora Bradbury-Haehl. One of the most striking is this article on sf.indymedia.org

The Passion, Rabbi Lerner and the Gospels [Originally on Counterpunch]
by Gary Leupp

Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University and the article is intelligent and well worth reading, but its oddity in this context is that it sees Lerner's attack as misguided without have realised the greater problem of Lerner's serious misquotation (though note that Leupp has in parenthesis "if Gibson indeed said that").

One of the things I have find useful about Jim Davila's approach in Paleojudaica has been the quest for accuracy and holding journalists to account. One of things that is troubling about Michael Lerner's piece is that in encouraging as many as possible to reproduce his piece, he has made a damaging misquotation far more prevalent than what was actually said. This is no way to forward sensible, fair and balanced discussion of a serious issue.

---

An interesting article appears in WorldNetDaily:

The power of 'The Passion'
Joseph Farah

Farah looks at the precedent for this film's impact in Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings (1927):

Like "The Passion of the Christ," it faced enormous opposition when it was released, sparking fears of anti-Semitism that, fortunately, were never realized . . . .

. . . . "In spite of excellent reviews ... what was harder to comprehend and cope with was the organized opposition of certain Jewish groups to the filmed history of the greatest Jew who ever lived," wrote DeMille.

The article goes on to connect one H. E. Wallner, who committed his life to Christian ministry after seeing this film, with the conversion of a German officer who helped Jews to escape from a concentration camp:

Wallner told DeMille in 1957: "If it had not been for 'The King of Kings,' I would not be a Lutheran pastor, and 350 Jewish children would have died in the ditches."

Some have ridiculed Gibson for suggesting the Holy Spirit guided him in the making of his film, but DeMille made a similar comment: "If I felt that this film was my work, it would be intolerably vain and presumptuous to quote such stories from the hundreds like them that I could quote," he wrote. "But all we did in 'The King of Kings,' all I have striven to do in any of my biblical pictures, was to translate into another medium, the medium of sight and sound, the words of the Bible."

---

Beliefnet has exclusive excerpts from the script of Mel Gibson's next film project, which until this morning has been kept under wraps. It features in John D. Spalding's Sick Soul column:

'The Cleansing of the Temple'
Beliefnet's exclusive excerpts from the script for the next Mel Gibson movie
Responding to criticism that "The Passion of the Christ" did not deal enough with Jesus' ministry, Mel Gibson has apparently decided to follow up the blockbuster with another movie, this one focused on Jesus' teachings. Though the project has been kept highly confidential because of the controversial nature of his previous film, Beliefnet was able to obtain a copy of a script treatment guiding this "prequel."
John D. Spalding

---

I've adjusted the URL for Matthew Robinson's Classical Greek Fonts and Utilities on my Greek fonts page. Thanks to Wim Pelt for flagging up that the old URL was dead.

---

Another addition to my Journals page is:

Currents in Theology and Mission

The full text of volumes from 2002-3 is freely available at the Find Articles web site. There are several articles of interest and ultimately I would like to link to them individually on the NT Gateway. However, given the recent disappearance of articles from FindArticles.com, especially all those from Harvard Theological Review, I am a little loathe to do this at the moment -- and there are many other articles awaiting indexing which may be more stable. But here are some hightlights, with thanks once again to Holger Szesnat. Apologies for the partial references (no pp. numbers etc.)

E. R. Kalin, Romans 1:26-27 and Homosexuality, Currents in Theology and Mission (December 2003)

L. Maloney, Mark and Mystery, Currents in Theology and Mission (December 2003)

M. A. Powell, Binding and Loosing: A Paradigm for Ethical Discernment from the Gospel of Matthew, Currents in Theology and Mission (December 2003)

H. C. Waetjen, The Trust of Abraham and the Trust of Jesus Christ:
Romans 1:17, Currents in Theology and Mission (December 2003)

---

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for pointing out this useful reorganisation of the Orion site and specifically its Symposia author index which provides easy access to lots of useful articles:

Orion Center Author Index

---

I have updated the links to Semeia on my Journals page. Full on-line versions free to all users of issues 79-81 and 83-91 (PDF) are available on the SBL site at a new location:

Semeia: An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism

The page also features a link to the book series that now replaces the journal, Semeia Studies.

Thanks to Holger Szesnat for the new URL and the information that those volumes are free.

---

BBC Manchester and Online are holding a live debate about The Passion of the Christ tonight at 22:00--01:00 BST and you can join in. Details here:

The Passion of the Christ - The Debate
You can join Mike Shaft and guests for a special BBC GMR debate about the film The Passion of the Christ on Wednesday 31st March. You'll also be able to listen online and join our special live chatroom for the duration of the programme.

The list of contributors looks very interesting:

Our discussion panels will include the following guests:

The Right Reverend Terence Brain - Bishop of Salford
Professor Elaine Graham from the department of Theology, Manchester University
Jean-Claude Bragard, Executive Producer in BBC Religion & Ethics. Produced and directed Son of God, BBC 1 2001
Rabbi Brian Fox from the Menorah Synagogue in Sharston
Councillor Afzal Khan, Muslim Council of Great Britain
Professor Ram Gokal from Manchester’s Hindu Community
Rev’d Roger Sutton, Chair of RUN, Reaching the Unchurched Network and Senior Pastor at Altrincham Baptist Church
Matt Wilson from The Message
Andrew Graystone, Religious Broadcaster
Robin Gamble, Canon Evangelist for the Manchester Diocese

With contributions from:

Rev’d Sarah Foster Clark, Curate for the Rivington and Horwich Benefice
Murray Watts, Screen Writer for the 2000 animation film The Miracle Maker
Stephen Goddard from the Ship-of-Fools website
‘Flic Vic’ Luke Walton (Rev’d)
Rev’d Mandy Hodgson, Team vicar at St Luke’s, Benchill
Mani Raja from Manchester Buddhist Centre
Rev’d Eric Delve, St Luke’s Maidstone
Rev’d Steve Williams, St Gabriel’s Prestwich, and Chaplain to the Bishop of Manchester.
Denis Blackledge, Parish Priest, Sacred Heart Church, Blackpool

---

Here's one for American readers, from the Religion Press Release Service:

INTERFAITH DIALOGUE ON HALLMARK CHANNEL "LIGHT ON: GIBSON'S PASSION" ORIGINAL TELEVISION SPECIAL TO AIR PALM SUNDAY, APRIL 4

Contact: Elizabeth Rumble
MacMillan Communications
(212) 473-4442
Elizabeth@macmillancom.com

NEW YORK, March 30 - "Light On: Gibson's Passion," an original television presentation, examines how Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," has profoundly affected Americans and American culture since its controversial premiere last month. The one-hour special, produced for Faith & Values Media by Lightworks Producing Group, brings together biblical scholars, religious leaders and moviegoers representing diverse faith traditions. The program airs Sunday, April 4 at 6 a.m. ET/PT (rebroadcast at 12 noon ET/PT) on Hallmark Channel.

"In recent weeks we've seen how `The Passion' has shaken up society, with nearly every faith organization and media outlet offering criticism of or praise for the film. Faith & Values Media wanted to bring together thoughtful scholars and other commentators to take a deeper look at the implications this discourse will have on American society now and down the road," said Edward J. Murray, president and chief executive officer of Faith & Values Media.

Leading the discussion from New York City, and corresponding with biblical experts in Nashville and St. Louis, is Mary Alice Williams, an Emmy Award-winning journalist who reports for WCBS Radio, and has previously worked with CNN, NBC and the Odyssey Channel. Sister Mary Boys, a member of the Sisters of the Holy Names and a professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary, and Amy Jill Levine, PhD., professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt University's Divinity School provide biblical insight to the roundtable discussion.

Randy Ingermanson, PhD. joins the interfaith dialogue from Nashville. An evangelical Christian and author of five books, Ingermanson wrote "Who Wrote the Bible Code? A Physicist Probes the Current Controversy." To provide a Jewish perspective, Rabbi Lynn Goldstein, president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association, joins the discussion from St. Louis along with Father Gary Braun, chaplain of the Washington University in St. Louis. In addition, the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder and pastor of the
Christian Cultural Center and Dr. David Benke, pastor of St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Brooklyn and president of the Atlantic District, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, address the implications "The Passion" fervor will have on the Christian community.

"At a time when national, cultural and global events have turned Americans' attention to more pointed religious discussions, Gibson's film provokes a worthwhile controversy which can lead to serious introspection and dialogue within, between, and among faith communities," said Murray. "'Light On: Gibson's Passion' highlights how the film has brought this dialogue to the forefront of society and provides a unique opportunity to hear this conversation."

Participants in NYC:

Mary Alice Williams, Emmy Award-winning journalist and reporter at WCBS Radio in New York City (Program Host)

The Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder and pastor, Christian Cultural Center

Sister Mary C. Boys, Sisters of the Holy Names and professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary

Dr. David Benke, pastor of St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Brooklyn and president of the Atlantic District, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

Moviegoers:

The Rev. Sara Lamar-Sterling, associate pastor, Park Avenue United Methodist Church Glenda Adams, an Evangelical Christian Joel Ney, a Modern Orthodox Jew Kathyrn Shaughnessy, a Catholic, and Instructor of Philosophy, Institute of Religious Studies. Rose Molina Kornblau, a Pentecostal Sheldon Kornblau, a Messianic Jew

Participants in Nashville:

Dr. Amy Jill Levine, professor of New Testament Studies at the Divinity School, Vanderbilt University

Demetria Kalodimos, Emmy-Award Winning anchor and reporter, WSMV Nashville

Randy Ingermanson, Ph.D in physics and an evangelical Christian and author

Participants in St. Louis:
Rabbi Lynn Goldstein, president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association

Father Gary Braun, chaplain of the Catholic Center at Washington University in St. Louis

About Faith & Values Media

Faith & Values Media is the nation's largest coalition of Jewish and Christian faith groups dedicated to media production, distribution and promotion. Its member association is made up of denominations, organizations and individuals, who encompass most of the recognized Jewish and Christian faith groups in the United States. Together, these faith groups have more than 200,000 congregations with 120 million congregants. (A list of member faith groups and organizations is available upon
request.) The programming services of Faith & Values Media are available on Hallmark Channel and on www.faithandvalues.com. Faith & Values Media is a service of the National Interfaith Cable Coalition, Inc., established in 1987.

---

A positive review in the Manila Times:

The passion of Mel Gibson
By Dennis Ladaw

Mel Gibson succeeds in conveying the ugliness of violence. We belong to a generation that’s become numb to violent crimes and Passion in a way makes us feel more sensitive to suffering and to people who have fallen victim to torture, terrorism and oppression. Hopefully, it would make others see the major world tragedies in a new light. The 9-11 attacks weren’t just mere headlines and the mass murder of six million Jews, along with other WWII atrocities, are more than just chapters of a history textbook. Ultimately Passion also gives us a new perspective on every crucifix we see from here on.

Also in the news, much more on the confessions getting made after people have seen the film. This is from the LouisvilleChannel.com, but it's repeated in many places:

'Passion' Prompts Confessions To Bombings, Murder, Burglary

---

Thanks to Charity Dell for sending this over and for permission to reproduce it here:

Everyone viewing THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST sees this film through a unique "lens"--our gender, religious upbringing--or lack of it--our ethnocultural heritage--combined with the accumulated collection of our personal experiences, shape the "lens" through which we perceive cinematic art. As an African-American Christian viewer of Mel Gibson's film, I must share what I saw, heard and felt when I and a friend attended a matinee showing of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST one Friday in Newark, New Jersey.

At the outset, everyone is drawn in to the movie's plot--immediately, you are "plunked down" in the Garden of Gethsemane and are "watching and praying", as it were, with Yeshua of Nazareth during His final hours. The theatre is completely quiet--except for a few muted voices here and there quoting remembered scripture--and people have neglected to bother with snack purchases and popcorn buckets.

The most riveting part of the film begins with the punishment of the young Jewish Rabbi at the hands of the Romans. Many of us literally FLINCHED in the seats when Yeshua was caned and whipped--and all around you were muffled, anguished cries of "Lord, have mercy!" and "Lord Jesus!"--the classic gut-wrenching phrases black people use to express shock, outrage and extreme horror. Men wept and attempted to stifle their sobs--one elderly black patron told me in the library in which I work* that he "was not religious at all", but that, while watching this movie, he started crying and his stomach got sick, and he literally could not bear to watch the first nail driven into the hand of Jesus: "I just HAD to turn my head away!" But he stated that "the film was good", and that the movie "essentially told the truth."

Descendants of slaves FULLY UNDERSTAND why Gibson's cameras show the instruments of torture and repression--whips and chains evoke powerful collective memories of the suffering of our African foremothers and forefathers HERE in this country at the hands of so-called "Christians." It wasn't so long ago that our great-grandparents literally bore the scars of slavery in their bodies--and the infamous cat o'nine tails was ALSO used on subjugated Africans by viscious, sadistic overseers who acted just like the Roman legionnaries and lictors depicted in the film.

One of the reasons people of color are responding so positively to THE PASSION OF CHRIST is due to Gibson's frank, realistic depiction of the horrors of scourging and crucifixion. The Yeshua of Nazareth depicted in this film shows a full range of emotions--He cries, laughs with His mother, stands up to angry religious authorities who want the adulteress stoned--but most of all, THIS Jesus experiences mental anguish and physical torture, is mocked by Herod and spit upon by the Roman soldiers and bears the full brunt of human hatred manifested in unspeakable brutality. In no other commercial movie venue is there ANY comparable depiction of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53--the "Man of sorrows" Who "hid not His face from shame and spitting", although "we hid as it were, our faces from Him...His visage was marred...yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise Him."

It is THIS Jesus--the JEWISH, biblical "Lamb of God"--not the "Pale Pitiful Mystical Robot-Poppet" of Hollywood's imagination--that African-Americans and Latinos recognize as "OUR Jesus"--the God Who let Himself be beaten, humiliated and crushed, Who felt the sting of violence under a harsh regime, Who suffered injustice and oppression, and Whose torn, lacerated flesh bore the marks of a savage, repressive empire bent on world conquest. Black Christians identify with the God Who becomes a "slave" during Passover, the Festival of Freedom--He is bought for 30 pieces of silver, the market value of a slave in first-century Israel--in order to free humanity from its captivity to sin and death. The honest, unsparing depiction of the harsh reality of Roman punishment "hits home and "rings true" for those whose lives are impacted daily by systemic injustice and senseless violence.

African-Americans immediately recognized the "Jesus" we've heard about in our Sunday Schools, Vacation Bible Schools and worship services, on the knees of our parents and grandparents and community elders--the "Jesus" of our prayer chants, our lined-out psalms and our spirituals and gospel anthems, Who inspired our slave ancestors with hope and gave us joy in the midst of sorrowful lives--and we have ALWAYS heard from our pulpits the message of discipleship--"NO CROSS, NO CROWN!"

Mel Gibson's artistic vision does not spare theatregoers the simply stated, awful truth of the "Apostle's Creed"--"He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead..." Black Christians find it easy to identify with the God Who endured unspeakable agony to redeem a sinful, evil world and reconcile humanity back to Yahweh our Father.

Hollywood is understandably "upset" with Mel Gibson for his "failure" to trivialize suffering and spare them the horrid truth of the ENORMOUS COST of humanity's redemption. For the last 25 years, the Movie Establishment was content to serve up a "saccharine slop of syrupy sweets" and sell these sentimental trifles as "biblical movies" to a jaded public. But then its collective little stomach "heaved" when scourging and crucifixion were accurately portrayed on film! We know from history that the backs of scourged victims were essentially reduced to raw hamburger meat and the internal organs, tendons, bones and muscles were frequently exposed--so Yeshua of Nazareth certainly looked far WORSE than anything imagined by the production company's make-up department!

The "Pampered Princes of Suburbia"--including "media pundits", "leading theologians" and "religious scholars"--who are all whining "Ooooooooh; it's just too bloody for meeee--I can't deal with all that mess and gore!!" ought to try seeing this movie--and the Messiah's suffering--through the eyes of those intimately acquainted with violence and degradation. Scourging and crucifixion cannot and should not be "sanitized, scrubbed clean and prettied-up" to charm the "comfortable folks" who want the movie to "prophesy unto us SMOOTH things!

Those of us deemed "marginal" by the media elites are NOT the ones complaining "there's just too much graphic, gratuitous violence"--Hollywood and the media moguls have not bothered to sample the opinions of black or Latino audiences--who are buying literal blocks of tickets and keeping the theatres filled with busloads and carloads of theatregoers! Nor are black and Latino viewers muttering "anti-semitic slogans" or "cursing all Italians" for "what the Romans did to Jesus"--most black and Latino Christians leave the cinema THINKING and quietly discussing all we have seen and felt.

Inasmuch as Mel Gibson's picture has illustrated the suffering of the biblical Yeshua of Nazareth--and has not shied away from showing that redemption was "bought with a price"--THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is destined to become a movie classic embraced by people of color who have suffered and can recognize the crushed Son of God Who was mistreated, and yet triumphed through it all.

"And let the church say, "AMEN!"

End of review.

---

Thanks to Helenann Hartley for this link to Sunday Sequence which features a discussion of the Passion of the Christ and has 5-10 minute interviews with Tom Wright and Geza Vermes on the question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament. You can listen to the whole programm here (c. 50 minutes):

Sunday Sequence

Wright's interview is towards the beginning (clearly on the phone rather than in a studio) and then Vermes. Worth listening to; plenty of interest. Both are not keen on the term "anti-Semitism" and rightly prefer to use "anti-Judaism". They agree on little else although -- alas -- they are not given the chance to engage with each other. Vermes does comment on The Passion of the Christ but Bishop Tom does not. Come on, Tom, we want to know what you thought about the film!

---

BBC Religion and Ethics have provided a summary of their programming over the Easter period, which may be of interest to some, mainly UK readers:

Religion and Ethics: Easter Programmes

---

It's time for another Passion of the Christ round up. The Guardian reports on its UK success:

Passion crowns UK box office

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was the No 1 film at the UK box office this weekend with a haul of just over £2m in three days.

Many screenings were sold out, with churches, as expected, buying up seats through block bookings. The film's total of £2,019, 803 also marked the highest opening for a subtitled film on these shores, defeating incumbent Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

I must admit that it has surprised me. I haven't met many people who have been to see it and those who have have not liked it, but then few academics do like it. I'm unusual. Thanks to Helenann Hartley for a link to a similar story on BBC News here:

Passion wins zombie cinema battle

From here, I spotted a link I had previously missed to an article written by a former fellow-student from my Oxford days:

How faithful is Gibson's Passion?
by The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard
Tutor in Christian Ethics, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford

Far from inciting violence, the lurid portrayal of brutality - overwhelmingly at Roman hands - will hopefully re-sensitize us to its horrors.

At the very least we will question what we do to those who are different or who threaten us.

On Christianity Today, Frank Schaeffer explains why he is not going to see it -- he doesn't like the "celluloid Jesus":

Not This Easter, Mel
I haven't seen The Passion of The Christ, and I don't plan to. Here's why.
by Frank Schaeffer

Meanwhile on Christianity Today's weblog, a link to an extraordinary story from Norway:

They said The Passion of The Christ would provoke neo-Nazis, and they were right: in one case, it's provoking a neo-Nazi to confess to his sins and repent.

Johnny Olsen, whom the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten calls "one of Norway's most feared men," turned himself in to police on Saturday after watching the film.

"He said that it was the film that made him realize that he had to show his hand. He has been preoccupied with Christianity, guilt, punishment, atonement, suffering and conversion during the 10 years I have known him," Olsen's lawyer said. "It has been a long process but the Jesus film made the difference. Now he shows true regret and is ready to make amends."

The full story is here in Aftenposten Norway:

Confessed after seeing 'Passion'
Johnny Olsen, a notorious convicted killer and neo-Nazi, has confessed to two bombings in Oslo in the 90s. Olsen, 41, decided to purge his guilty conscience after viewing Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion of the Christ, newspaper Dagbladet reports

Back to BBC news, thanks again to Helenann Hartley again for this one from Saturday:

Brothers seek French Passion ban
Three Jewish brothers have gone to court seeking a ban on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in France.

In opposing the release of the film, the Benlolos submitted pages of quotes from US movie reviews, which the judge said would not be accepted as evidence.

And the outcome? In Monday's BBC News:

Judge rejects French Passion ban
A judge in France has rejected a request by three Jewish brothers to ban Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Claims of anti-Semitism stemmed from "a narrow view" of the film, she said.

"To make the death of Jesus into the major motivation of anti-Semitism that leads to secular persecutions against Jews would stem from a narrow view of Mel Gibson's film," said Judge Lagemi following a private screening of the film.

Thanks to David Mackinder for this link to a very negative review in the most recent (April 8) New York Review of Books. The first half of the article is about The Passion of the Christ:

God in the Hands of Angry Sinners
By Garry Wills

My wife and I had to stop glancing furtively at each other for fear we would burst out laughing. It had gone beyond sadism into the comic surreal, like an apocalyptic version of Swinburne's The Whipping Papers.

etc.

Gaff of the day: I was speaking at a sixth form day school in Birmingham today on "The sacred text in Christianity". As is my wont at the moment, I began topically by commenting on The Passion of the Christ, asking how many of the 160 or so students present had seen the film yet. A few tentative hands went up and I was taken aback that so few had seen it. One of the teachers kindly took me to one side later on and reminded me that that all of those present were lower sixth, 16-17 years old, and The Passion of the Christ has an 18 certificate.

---

Thanks to Mark Elliott for this latest on the Bible and Interpretation Essays on the Passion, now building up to a very valuable collection:

An Unacknowledged Passion
While most Christians are familiar with the stories in the Gospels of Jesus’ arrest, trial, torture, and crucifixion, they are less familiar with how those same stories have been used throughout history to justify not only anti-Jewish sentiment but, at times, violent persecution of Jews.
By Mark A. Chancey
Department of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
March 2004

Chancey's article is an excellent exposition of the appalling history of Christian anti-Semitism, aimed at those who are cannot understand the fuss about The Passion of the Christ. "Understanding why aspects of this movie could be seen as anti-Semitic," he says, "requires understanding the unfortunate role Christianity has played in the historical development of anti-Semitism." I am grateful for Chancey's careful tone -- he avoids the excessive and unhelpful rhetoric that some of the film's critics have used. It is also particularly useful to have a well presented summary of some of the worse episodes in Christian anti-Semitism. Chancey summarises:

It is within this larger context that the furor over Gibson’s movie must be understood. The types of anti-Jewish sentiments mentioned above are foreign to most American Christians today, most of whom who have never heard of “deicide,” “blood libel,” or the ad versos Judaeos tradition. Many Christian denominations have issued official statements repudiating the deicide charge and committing themselves to fighting anti-Semitism. The fact that so many Christians have not regarded Gibson’s movie as problematic is in many ways a sign of progress on this front: most Christians are not carrying anti-Semitism with them into the theater, and they are not finding it on the screen once they get there.

Perhaps because I am a born optimist, I find this last comment particularly encouraging. But Chancey goes on:

”Most” is not the same as “all,” however. If some people can read The DaVinci Code and then believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, it requires no stretch of the imagination to think that at least a few viewers will believe Gibson’s movie is an accurate portrayal of events. They will see Gibson’s whitewashing of Pilate and his vilification of the Jews, points on which the movie goes well beyond what we find in the Gospels, and walk out thinking about how vicious “those Jews” were. The anti-Semitic slur “Christ-killer,” though repeated less frequently now than in decades past, is still heard. The minority of viewers who already harbor anti-Semitic feelings may well walk away feeling validated, having just witnessed “the Jews” kill Jesus on the movie screen. Those who still hold to the view that all Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus, and the view does still circulate in some sectors of American Christianity; will find nothing but confirmation of that belief in this movie.

Now having made those positive comments about Chancey's article overall, there are some elements in this paragraph that I find a little troubling. The first is the use of the term "the Jews" in inverted commas. As I have commented previously, some care is necessary here. As is well known, the Fourth Gospel does repeatedly characterise a body it calls "the Jews" in a very negative fashion. But The Passion of the Christ, in spite of what one reads in some articles and reviews, never does this. Indeed the only time that the term "Jew" is used, it is used in positive contexts, with reference to Jesus and to Simon of Cyrene. So we need to be careful about importing terminology into the film that is not found there. It is because the issue of anti-Semitism is so important that we should strive for accuracy in commenting on this film (and not just this film, of course).

Chancey's comments on the film's relationship to the Gospels overstate the case. In the passage quoted above, he writes, "They will see Gibson’s whitewashing of Pilate and his vilification of the Jews, points on which the movie goes well beyond what we find in the Gospels, and walk out thinking about how vicious “those Jews” were." But does the film go "well beyond what we find in the Gospels" here? I don't think so. It pulls back considerably not only on John's language, already mentioned, but steers well clear of the possible implication in Luke that the Romans had little to do with Jesus' death. Lines that are spoken by the crowd(s) especially in Matthew are transferred solely to Caiaphas in the film. As I have frequently commented before, I wish that Gibson had taken more care here. In particular, I wish he had taken seriously the need for an advisory board of academics who would themselves be accountable. But I am also keen that when we discuss what is in the film we do so as accurately as possible. As scholars, it is important that we set the standard on these issues, and show both the film-makers and the media reporters how importantly we regard care, accuracy and fairness.

Jim Davila also comments in Paleojudaica.

---

Channel 4 is showing a documentary on the Turin Shroud tonight at 9 pm, part of the Secrets of the Dead series:

Series in which forensic science is used to investigate history. The probity of the Turin Shroud, popularly believed to have covered the body of Christ, has long been subject to scrutiny. This programme reveals the latest developments in theories regarding its age following restoration work in 2002 by a Swiss textile expert.

The Channel 4 web site is also advertising a live chat with the producer/director Alex Hearle after the programme, 10 pm.

Update (23.53): watched this programme tonight. Didn't add much of interest. A textiles expert claimed that the stitching on the shroud was of a kind only found previously at Masada and never found in medieval relics, but that was covered in about five minutes and in insufficient detail. What I'd have liked to have seen something on would have been the Jerusalem shroud discovered by Shimon Gibson two years ago, which -- if I remember correctly -- contrasted radically with the Turin shroud. If there is anything new worth discussing, then that is it.

---

I was going to blog this article from Ship of Fools on Friday (see previous entry) but decided it needed to be dignified with its own separate posting, and it's had to wait for this weblog's weekend off:

According to Mel
The Passion of the Christ as seen by Iwan Russell-Jones

It is one of the best reviews I have seen; I have the feeling that he "gets" the film in a way that many reviewers seem not to, reviewers who on the whole have been unable to explain the film's massive public appeal. It's all worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

This is why the violence and the brutality are such an important and integral part of the film. Even as the blows rain down on Christ, the flashbacks remind us of his teaching: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, forgive. The torment, the sufferings, the cross of Christ, are all put in the context of a love that goes to any lengths, extraordinary lengths, to restore and heal. As a grief-stricken Mary tries to comfort him as he stumbles along the way, he tells her, "See, mother, I make all things new."

In Gibson's vision, Jesus, the apparent victim of the worst that the human race can dream up, becomes the victor, the one who through suffering conquers the powers of evil and death, and makes the love and forgiveness of God available to all. The cinematic realization of this vision, at the climax of The Passion of the Christ, is both moving and breath-taking.

Mel Gibson has created a remarkable film. There are images, ideas and words here that will linger long in the memory, and may even have the power to change our lives forever.

And at last someone else grasps the Simon of Cyrene material that I've been banging on about here:

But, crucially, the film itself pulls the rug out from under any form of anti-semitism. This occurs, very consciously, in the sequence involving Simon the Cyrene, who is pressed into helping Jesus carry his cross. When Simon cries out in protest against the viciousness of the Roman soldiers towards Jesus, they turn on him with contempt. "Let's go, Jew," one of them spits out. At this moment where Simon's compassion and humanity become apparent, Gibson has provided a deliberate and forceful reminder of his racial identity.

Quite right (though I remember the line as the single word "Jew"; will need to check this on my next viewing).

There's another less positive review on the same site:

According to Mel
The Passion of hte Christ as seen by Mark Stafford

One comment on his review:

We are given little or no context for these sufferings, we're not rooting for the cause or longing for a resolution, we just come slowly to the point of wanting to stand up and shout, "Leave him alone!", because there's only so much punishment you can watch being inflicted on one person.

But one of things that is so powerful about the Simon of Cyrene episode is that he stands up and shouts exactly this -- "Leave him alone!" We stand there with him, wanting to intervene, unable to be an idle bystander. The film draws us in; its story captures us.

---