Elaine Pagels on Mel Gibson's "Passion"

[Guest guest]

This post doesn't strictly concern Shaktism, but I know a number of

group members have much interest in the ancient Gnostic Gospels,

unearthed in Egypt shortly after WW2, which suggest that the

religion preached by the historical Jesus was a lot closer to Tantra

than the religion *about* Jesus that has come down to us as

Christianity.

 

One of the foremost scholars of Gnosticism is Elaine Pagels. David

Remnick coaxed her into sharing her impressions of Mel Gibson's

controversial, ultra-violent dramatization of the Roman Catholic

Stations of the Cross. I thought some of you might find it

interesting:

 

PASSIONS, PAST AND PRESENT

by David Remnick (Issue of 2004-03-08, Posted 2004-03-01)

 

Last week, while the critics, the clergy, and the professional

opinion-providers were caught up in the opening, on Ash Wednesday,

of "The Passion of the Christ," it seemed a good idea to ask Elaine

Pagels, a renowned historian of the early Christian period, to see

the film and offer her reaction. Scholarship on the quick,

admittedly. Professor Pagels, who teaches at Princeton and is the

author of "The Gnostic Gospels" and "The Origin of Satan," seemed

hesitant at first. But one evening she viewed "The Passion" with

some friends, and afterward she called to say that she was, well,

disturbed. And not just because of the unremitting and brutal

flaying of Christ, "though my friends said that anyone who had

really endured that kind of torture would have been dead a lot

earlier in the movie."

 

Pagels is both a scholar and, in her way, a practicing Christian.

Usually, she is measured, soft-spoken, but there was the slightest

tone of agitation in her voice: "It's important to remember that

this is Lent, and meditations on the Passion of Christ are an

important part of the cultural interpretation of human suffering.

There's a context for the movie in the history of art. When

Christians read the Gospels as historical acts, they will say what

Mel Gibson says: that this is the truth, this is our faith. But the

important thing is that this film ignores the spin the gospel

writers were pressured to put on their works, the distortions of

facts they had to execute. Mel Gibson has no interest whatsoever in

that."

 

Pagels explained that the four gospel writers of the New Testament

probably wrote between 70 and 100 A.D. These were the years

following the Roman defeat of the Jews, which left the Temple and

the center of Jerusalem in ruins. Acts of sedition by the Jews

against their conquerors were met with swift execution. As a result,

Pagels said, the Gospels, which were intended not as history but as

preaching, as religious propaganda to win followers for the

teachings of Christ, portrayed the conflict of the Passion as one

between Jesus and the Jewish people, led by Caiaphas. And, though it

was the Roman occupiers, under Pontius Pilate, who possessed

ultimate political and judicial power in Judea, they are described

in the Gospels—and, more starkly, in Gibson's film -- as relatively

benign.

 

"Our first informed comment on Pilate comes from Philo of

Alexandria, a wealthy, influential Jewish citizen who was part of a

delegation sent to Rome to negotiate with the emperor," Pagels

said. "The delegation saw the Emperor Caligula in the year 40, seven

to ten years after Jesus' death, and Philo writes that Pilate was

stubborn and cruel and routinely ordered executions without trial.

The other great historian of the period is Josephus, who wrote the

history of the war between the Romans and the Jews. He tells us many

episodes about Pilate that also go against what the Gospels tell us—

that he robbed the public treasury, that he deliberately incited the

Jerusalemites. Josephus tells us that when people rioted in protest

Pilate sent his soldiers to beat and kill them. So he was far from

the man depicted in the Gospels.

 

"Mel Gibson denies any anti-Semitism, and I can't speak to his

motives," Pagels went on, "but there are narrative devices that are

clear. The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more

malignant the Jews are. To deflect responsibility from the Romans

for arresting and executing Christ, which Gibson takes from the

Gospels and makes even more extreme, is contrary to everything we

understand about history. It is implausible that the Jews could be

responsible and Pilate a benign governor. There are many examples in

the film of a preposterous dialectic: the bad Jews and the good

Romans. When the Temple police arrest Jesus, Mary Magdalene turns to

the Romans as if they were the policemen on the block, benign

protectors of the public order. But the very idea of a Jewish woman

turning to Roman soldiers for help is ridiculous."

 

Unlike many of the critics, Pagels was hesitant about analyzing what

effect "The Passion of the Christ" would have on its audiences. But

her tone was one of regret.

 

Pagels pointed out that the history of western art is rife with

representations of the Passion that avoid divisive sentiment. "In

the 'St. Matthew Passion,'" she said, "Bach was very aware of the

problem of arousing anti-Semitic feelings and he wanted deliberately

to avoid that. So at the moment when there is the cry to crucify

Christ, the call comes not from an identifiable group of Jews but

from all, from the entire chorus. Bach demonstrated what Gibson

claims that he wanted to show, the inclination of human beings,

universally, to do violence." There were other artists, too -- from

Palestrina to Bill Viola -- who depicted the Passion in a similar

spirit.

 

In the end, she said, "Gibson's movie is no more subtle than 'The

Lord of the Rings.' There is the side of good and the side of evil."

 

URL: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?040308ta_talk_remnick

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2004 8:02:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,

sisterusha writes:

Remember that the Christians have one book

called the Bible that they consider authoritative. Hindus do not.

There are several versions of the Kali mythology in various parts of

India. Which one will they use?

the Christians have many books 44 of them were put into one volume and called

"the bible"

Different thoughts and different ways of thinking have gone into that book

but they try to pretend that all the books say the same thing..some times even

one of the books like for example Geneses does not even agree with itself...as

in the creation story.

 

And people limit their spiritual growth when the imagine that the device

parent has stopped inspiring us to write. As far as I am concerned Star Hawk

and

De Pak Chopra and just two of them that have come along in our time.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

?>Pontius Pilate, who possessed

> ultimate political and judicial power in Judea, they are described

> in the Gospels—and, more starkly, in Gibson's film -- as relatively

> benign.

 

But they explained this in the movie. Mr. Pilate was standing before

a crowd led by the Jewish swami Caiaphas. Pilate knew that Jesus had

many supporters in town who were not present in the trial. He was

afraid that if he had Jesus executed, this would start a rebellion by

the pro-Jesus people. If he did not, the anti-Jesus mob would start a

revolt. Either way, this would look bad for Pilate with his superiors

in Rome. So he was hesitant not out of any compassion for Jesus but

rather concern for his own career. The determining factor was a large

crowd of anti-Jesus people in Mr. Pilate's own courtyard.

I am not saying that this is accurate history. There were no

television cameras present at the trial, so it is impossible to know

for certain what happened. I am merely quoting the movie, which I saw

yesterday.

Let us relate this back to the discussion a few weeks ago about

the proposed Tina Turner movie about Kali. This movie about Jesus was

made by Christians in a Christian country, and millions of Christians

are arguing about the accuracy of small details. What will happen

with a movie about Kali? Remember that the Christians have one book

called the Bible that they consider authoritative. Hindus do not.

There are several versions of the Kali mythology in various parts of

India. Which one will they use? If the movie is to be made, it is

essential that the script writers have some major input from Hindu

scholars. This is necessary to ensure that the movie is accurate and

honorable, that it will foster understanding between the Christian

world and the Hindu world, rather than furthering misunderstanding

and continued prejudice.

 

Sister Usha