Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is an apposite reminder that fundamentalism is not the prerogative of the Islamic faith, writes Vincent Browne.
It purports to tell the "true" story of the last 24 hours in the life of Jesus, but, in its mixture of non-scriptural pietistic folklore about Jesus with gospel accounts that, by any non-fundamentalist standards, are historically unreliable, it produces a mish-mash that is in turn gruesome, anti-Semitic and menacing.
First the unscriptural bits.
This would not matter had the claims about the film by its creator and his admirers, including many Catholic cardinals and bishops, not been that it faithfully portrayed the gospel account.
Take, for instance, the goriest scene in the film, the so-called "scourging at the pillar".
Mark, the first gospel-writer, records simply that Pilate "wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified" (15.15). Matthew, who copied 90 per cent of his gospel from Mark, writes that having heard "the people" cry "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (that piece of menace that reverberated down the years to ordain holocausts), Pilate "released Barabbas for them and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified" (27.26).
Luke, who copied half his gospel from Mark, omits any reference to Jesus being flogged. Yes, he has Pilate offering to flog Jesus and then release him, but the people shouted: "Crucify him, crucify him".
But no mention of any flogging having taken place. John has again a bare mention of flogging: "Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged" (19.1).
So three of the gospel-writers have a passing reference to Jesus being flogged (not scourged, flogged); one gospel-writer has no mention of Jesus being flogged, let alone scourged; and Mel Gibson makes the flogging the goriest, most gruesome six-minute sequence in modern cinema, outside snuff movies. And we are asked to believe this is how it was because that is what the gospels said it was.
To continue: Mark sums up the way to the cross in about 40 words, devoted mainly to the kidnapping of Simon of Cyrene and requiring him to carry the cross (15.21). Matthew devotes even fewer words to the way of the cross, again mentioning that Simon carried the cross (27.32). Luke devotes several verses to the journey to Calvary (23.26-31). Again he has Simon carrying the cross, and most of these verses are given over to a report that Jesus addressed unidentified women. John has Jesus "carrying the cross by himself", and the journey is told in a few words (19.17).
Mel Gibson makes a drama of it, lasting several minutes and portraying several scenes for which there is no biblical source: Jesus falling three times on the road to Calvary, St Veronica wiping the face of Jesus with a towel, the presence of his mother, Mary, on the road to Calvary?
Quite the most harrowing scene in the film is the nailing of Jesus to the cross. Mark makes no mention of nailing. He writes: "They offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him" (15.23). Matthew makes only a passing reference to it - "and when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves" (27.35).
Luke makes a bare mention of it, too: "When they came to the place that is called The Skull they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and the one on his left" (23.32). John likewise makes bare mention of it: "There they crucified him and with him two others" (19.18).
So where did the nails get into the picture? In any event, treating the gospels as reliable historically is problematic, as is acknowledged by many biblical scholars nowadays, including Catholics.
Mark's gospel was written about 40 years after the death of Jesus, around 75 Common Era. This was a very emotive time for Jews and Christians for it was in the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, following a Jewish insurrection, instigated by the Jewish establishment, whom the gospel writers suspiciously blamed for the death of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were written a few years afterwards and the gospel of John after 30 years later still, around 105 CE.
John's gospel differs from the other three in adding much greater detail and colour to the story than did the other writers, suggesting that in the intervening 30 years pietistic tradition added a lot to the story that had no basis in fact.
The Passion of the Christ, far from exerting restraint in its depiction of the story of the death of Jesus, because of the unreliability of the gospels, adds to the gospel story mere folk tales for which there is no authority at all. And in adding a historical folklore to that story Mel Gibson infuses it with a vibe that may again bring calamity to people who already suffered persecution and genocide because of what Matthew and the others wrote in circumstances very different from anything that prevailed subsequently.