www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Gnostic Passion of the Christ

This from the BRAVO website. The film is currently being shown twice tonight (Saturday, Mar-6-2004):

* * * * * * *

The Last Temptation of Christ

March 6, 2004

Faith, morality, sin and redemption have been subjects of intense interest for director Martin Scorsese, dating back at least as far as Harvey Keitel holding his hand over votive candles and imaging the tormenting flames of hell in Mean Streets. So it should come as no surprise that this Roman Catholic artist would be drawn to Nikos Kazantzakis' controversial, Gnostic-influenced novel reinterpreting the story of the Passion. Willem Dafoe portrays Jesus, dealing with his own doubts, fears and, yes, temptations in a way never before depicted in film. With Harvey Keitel, Barbara Hershey, Harry Dean Stanton and David Bowie.

* * * * * * *

It is interesting how the Gnostic version of the Passion is being shown after Mel Gibson's Passion movie debuted. Yet, BRAVO stated earlier that it will not show it again. According to the non-church affiliated CATHOLIC LEAGUE for Religious and Civil Right's website:

"The cable television channel Bravo aired the film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Fourteen months prior, Bravo pulled a showing of the film and issued a statement to the press saying they "have decided not to renew the licensing agreement to air the movie, therefore this feature will no longer be aired."

Hmmmmmmmm. And that was only ~five years ago ...

I wonder if liberal biblical scholar, Paula Frederickson, and others will protest the highly anti-orthodox, anti-canonical portrayal of the Passion of the Christ? Oh! I almost forgot. Paula Frederickson doesn't believe in the primacy (and/or accuracy) of the canonical Gospels. I am sure Elain Pagels will enjoy knowing a Gnostic-version of anything got primetime.

This next one from the Detroit Free Press:

* * * * * * *

"The Last Temptation of Christ" (8 p.m., Bravo). With all the theological and box-office hubbub sparked by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," Bravo gets into the spiritual movie zone. Director Martin Scorsese's provocative, absorbing 1988 film features Willem Dafoe as Jesus of Nazareth. The only jarring note? Harvey Keitel's street tough accent as a character I would describe as Judas of Brooklyn. Yo, J.C.!

* * * * * * *

BTW, when the movie first debuted in the theatres, Scorsese's friend, Roger Ebert (remember him?) gave it a thumbs up.

But airing this controversial film during Lent is just another attempt to ride the Passion of the Christ bandwagon. A few years back, one network in Russia, NTV, tried airing it on during Holy Week, but it got cancelled. Just like the Jesus Seminar folks, you only hear from them around Christmas (in order to deny it or at least deny the canonical Gospel version of it) or Easter (in order to deny it or at least deny the canonical Gospel version of it). Go figure!

Joe

I have not seen either film, but the things I have heard about both -- make me think Gibson might have actually borrowed a bit from Last Temptation of Christ.

I know in Gibson's movie, Satan appears before Christ -- is this a temptation scene? When there is none in the Bible? Certainly, seems to be borrowing from some ideas that are behind Last Temptation if it is..

I saw the film last night on Bravo.

My comments are clearly from someone who has not studied theology. From what I understand there is no basis in theology for this account of the life and Passion of Jesus.

The film was from an artistic point of view very captivating and unique. Although I have not yet seen (I will wait until Good Friday) Gibson's movie (but have been exposed to endless clips) I believe that the 'Passion' probably was influenced by the 'Last Temptation'.

Some of my favorite scenes include; the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the angel (satan) removing Christ from the Cross, the preaching St-Peter confronting Jesus for not having died on the cross, the apostles confronting an elderly Jesus - including Judas' explanation for having betrayed him, and the end where Jesus begs God for the chance to die on the Cross to save man - then poof ! just like the final episode of Dallas, the 'last temptation' never really happened.

O.K. - You guys can send all the nasty e-mails you want, but I thought the film was worth watching. The 'Last Temptation' does deliver the message that: Christ was sent from heaven but was human, he suffered on the Cross, was tempted by satan, and died for the sins of man.

O.K. - Fire away !

Hritzko,
Although I've seen neither movie, I can tell you that your are not alone in reconsidering the "Last Temptation...":

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/iannone.html

Gnostic?

Joe, your wondering about what certain critics of "The Passion..." would say, misses a key point in their criticism. Unlike the Gibson film which was touted for its authenticity, there were no such pretensions by Scorsese, instead his film apparently included a specific disclaimer on that point. The First Things writer (Iannone), btw, thinks that such a disclaimer was insufficient. Just, as we have discussed in the context of "The Passion...", and "The Gospel..." the high degree of realism and borrowing from the Gospel inevitably clouds any such disclaimer. Interestingly, Iannone couples this problem to criticism of the limited play of the entire Gospel message. Of course, Gibson faced this criticism as well. (OC.net has just such a critique bt Fr. Thomas Hopko of SVS).

djs, or whoever you are:

Once again you take me to task and I don't even know who my respondent is ...

There were many lines in the film (I only watched 15-20 minutes) that grossly contradict the teaching of the Christ as found in the canonical Gospels.

I am sure the author didn't imply that it was a faithful 'word-for-word' version of anything but his own. He got excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox anyway.

But because you can't see what I was trying to get at, but would rather take me to task, I ask you once again to consider what I wrote. You consider the artistic license that any author has. This is OK. I even appreciated "Jesus of Montreal."

Mel gets charged for being anti-Semitic for first including something that WAS in the Gospel (cf. Matthew), but we simply write off The Last Temptation of Christ Denied as mere artistic license. There were a number of old polemics and new trends in that movie. I would simply consider it a mere artistic creation in itself (just another Jesus story), but there are many who actually believe that this IS the real story about Jesus to the extent that the canonical version is an absolute fabrication. The Jesus Seminars, Paula Fredericksons, and Elaine Pagels of the world would probably stand on the side of The Last Temptation as Gospel truth than the canonical Gospels themselves.

And that they teach at Catholic universities and take such idea seriously is another story. I know from personal experience.

Any producer always includes his/her own artistic touches. But Mel didn't try to surround his ideas with the Passion story. Like any iconographer, he can also write a theology - even though that may not have been his intention. Our Pentecost icon sometimes show Mary, the Theotokos, with the Apostles, but that is because we Byzantines believe that Mary is the 'heart' of the Church, hence her inclusion in that icon at times.

I personally don't believe that Mel is a theologian nor pretends to be one. He is an actor and director.

My comments about the cultural wars is not personally directed at you, so you don't have to defend them all the time. I was only providing a commentary.

BRAVO was supposed to have stated that they wouldn't show it. They did. Money and ratings talk. I am sure we will see more Jesus documentaries, movies, plays, and hear more from the Jesus Seminar folks over the Great Fast. We might even be entertained with another viewing of The Life of Brian ...

Can you imagine any producer making a documentary about Mohammed with the same artistic license as found in the Last Temptation? Will you volunteer to visit mosques to tell the Muslims that the movie was OK because the producer didn't intend to base his story on the Qu'ran and/or traditions about his life? That he was actually a closet-Christian?

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Joe

Blessed are the cheesemakers?

These things are not to be taken literally, it means ay manufacturer of dairy product.

Shut up, nig nose!

Blessed are the Greek?

Apparently, they're going to inherent the Earth.

OH! It's the MEAK. Oh, that's nice because they've been having a heck of a time.


Monty Python strikes again. Sorry!

hal

So it appears I am not the only one picking up this connection between "Last Temptation" and "The Passion."

One of the reasons I would not be surprised is to give nod to the genre in general, good or bad, is typical in film-making.

I don't take them at all personally, and wish that you would not take it personally, when I disagree with aspects of your commentary.

I don't write it off. I noted that Iannone said that disclaimers notwithstanding there is still so much of a resonance with the Book - that it is not clear enough that this is work of fiction rather than being the real story. I had suggested before that the closer one is to the real story the greater the scrutiny precisely because of the possible confusion of the work with the real story. Accordingly, Gibson's highly authentic movie could be expected to raise concerns and to receive criticism.

By now it should be clear that many people of faith criticised the movie, not because they are on the wrong side of the culture war but because of sincere issues thay had with it. Conversely lack of criticism of the Last Tempation, among people of faith, probably has more to do with the limited audience and clearer departure of the movie from the real story, rather than latent anti-Christian sympathies, IMO. And perhaps too the that fact that it may have a resonating message for us: that the gravest barrier to shouldering our crosss is the not a preference for abject evil, but the simple desire for a simple, pleasant earthly life.

I do think that raising the issue of possible Anti-Semitism was unavoidable and seems to have had good results. In light of history, special diligence is required on this issue.

I think that the complaint that if Mel wanted authenticity he might have hired some experts as consultants is a valid one. I assume that Mel could have found some that share his vision. I think that you see the folks you mention, who clearly do not share his vision, as some sort of threat to the Church. The quotes from some of them at the Catholic league give a hint that they take themselves far too seriously, and haven't fully grasped the limitations of their scholarship. (Oh well, maybe they're still too young for that.) Personally, I do find their work interesting in a variety of senses, but not in the sense of revelation or faith-experience. And I don't see them as especially significant. Perhaps I am too lax about them, but I think it is true that you are the only one who pays them any notice here.

Yes. Their work is very interesting. They raise many good, if not excellent questions. But one of the problems in current OT and NT biblical studies is that we don't know how they were written. We have what we have and then we have a large pile of theories ... Many in the Church of Academia DO think they are on to something. Unfortunately, their work has not converted many to the faith. Those who do keep one foot in such scholarly work and another in the Church with faith and love are considered 'biased' and their work tainted with that faith element.

I pay them notice because I was in biblical studies. In fact, I still am, but in a different way than attaining "supplementary" education in deacon studies, which I am no longer involved with nor care to be. I pay them notice because I know what they are up to.

In my earlier thread:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000017

I brought up the use of typology in the Scriptures as well as parallels. Those who make a big deal with Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be on us and on our children") really don't know the theology behind it. Idiots will make something anti-Semitic about it, but the phrase, djs, harkens back to Jeremiah, the Prophet. Why haven't we heard about this guy in all the fuss over anti-Semitism?

Any ordinary Joe can read the account of the Passion, especially Matthew's, and chapter 26 in Jeremiah and find a good use of parallels. Let's investigate the parallels between Jeremiah and Jesus:

Jeremiah 26 // the Passion narratives
"all the people" // the crowds
"You must die!" // "He deserves death!"
officials // Pilate and the guards
place at the New Gate // the judgment seat
house of the LORD // Praetorium
bring disaster // destroy the Temple
in your hands // Pilate washes his hands
guilt of innocent blood // "His blood be on us ..."
for in truth .. to speak // "What is truth?"
this man // Ecce homo! (Behold, the man!)
should not die // he is innocent

* was NOT handed over // * was handed over to be crucified

Jeremiah prophesied against the city and the Temple // Jesus prophesied against the city and the Temple

the First Temple was destroyed by Babylonians for their unfaithfulness // the last Temple was destroyed by the Romans

Of course, the Suffering Servant and Psalm 21 and 53 are used ...

But if there was any punishment for bringing on innocent blood, it was the eventual destruction of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem, which occured in both cases.

The Gospel message does not imply a condemnation of a race of people in a genetic sort of way. That is twisting Scripture; an abuse.

But in all the hub-bub about Mel Gibson's movie, there was a failure to address what I just mentioned. Mel was right in stating on his Primetime interview with Diane Sawyer that a few seconds of Matthew 27:25 would not do justice to the theology behind it. It was still there, but in Aramaic; no subtitles.

All this might sound trivial to some, but I find it important. We can become experts in canon law and liturgical rubrics, including headgear and robe-gear, but fail in opportunities to expound on the message of the Gospel. BTW, there were several scenes in the Passion movie where the priests looked like a bunch of Orthodox bishops! Hmmmmmmmmm.

As for my biblical studies, I find many believers really interested in it. I have an uncle who is currently contemplating leaving the Catholic Church because he was convinced that our church misled him by covering up all this Mary Magdalena material. He, like many other confused believers, are trying to make sense on how to address the issues. Matthew 27:25 and all the distractions (and anti-Semitic arguments floating around out there in pinheads) keep us from realizing the tradition kept since the Hebrew Scriptures.

Mel is NOT the answer in biblical studies, but his movie comes closer than The Last Temptation in giving equal time to a more orthodox-canonical interpretation of those events. I like being a bystander watching how biblical scholars behave when these things happen. They show their true colors and make stupid statements that only reveal the true intent of their scholarly research and publications. We just have to be alerted to that at times.

Joe

To relly judge the relatine merits of the Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion, I think you should also see Kundun Martin's attempt to do to Buddhism what the Last Temptation of Christ did to Charistianity. The treatment of Christ and the Dali Lama are similar He protrays them as wimps who didnt get a normal childhood: of cours, that is just my take on the movies but is one which has lasted for several years. There was a comment about a possibly unfavorabe movie about The Prophet. Rmember the death reward put up for a British author who wrote an unfavorabe novel abour Islam I cant remember the title or author but it is a lot worse that rexcommunication by the First Patriarch an day

(the number editing is mine)

(1) I always figured if Jesus was to return in my lifetime, it would be in my hometown.

(2) The biblical quote condeming the Jews and their progeny for generations was not used (at least I did not hear it). During the crucifixtion of Jesus and the whole time he suffered on the cross there were Jews who were mocking him. The last Temptation makes a clear point of showing that Christ was suffering for all men and the Jews were mocking him.

(3) It's too bad that they believe this to be the real story. I have not heard anyone say that they believe that this is 'the truth'.

(4) Clearly, the whole controversial 'temptation' takes place 'silently' in Christ's thoughts while he is suffering on the cross. Only Jesus and God (maybe satan too) could have been witness to the fictitious 'last temptation'.

I can't understand how the Universities can be teaching this as a 'truth', since there is no prophecy concerning the 'final temptation', and Jesus and God have never made known these fictitious events to man at a later time.

(5) I'm glad Bravo showed it. I would watch it again, and again, and again. I'm sure I would would learn more about the suffering of Christ each time.

(6) Good. If they can help people better understand the teachings of Christ, and perhaps bring some people back to the church I think that the more the better. Eventually they will make their way to the 'Apostolic' version of the life of Jesus, and hopefully they will become Christians.

(7) No - but let's face it, I can't expect most of these people to ever come out of the middle ages either. I have been numerous Muslim countries and say this from conviction. Christianity has come a long way. Christianity attracts people to the faith. Islam puts a knife to their backs and says "join or else !".

...perhaps too the that fact that it may have a resonating message for us: that the gravest barrier to shouldering our crosss is the not a preference for abject evil, but the simple desire for a simple, pleasant earthly life.
_________________________________________________

I think that this was THE main message of the movie. Clearly in 'The Last Temptation of Christ', we see Jesus at one point as a mid-life man who has a beautiful familly. He is happy and content being with them. As djs point out he had "but the simple desire for a simple, pleasant earthly life".

If Jesus was a mortal human being and not the son of God, we could probably say that he was doing God's work on Earth. Clearly for the average mortal human there can be no evil in raising and loving a familly, BUT as djs points out "God had bigger plans for him".

Shouldering the Cross for Jesus meant: (1)pain and suffering, including feelings of abandonment by God, and (2) loss of 'simple pleasant earthly life'. Clearly, Jesus could have had the 'easy life' but instead whent the other way - he died on the Cross for us.

This is the message many Ukrainian nationalists took here in the new world (you knew I was going to get that in here ). The easy life would have been to develop roots here and forget about the people left behind in Ukraine in the hell of non-democratic oppression (tyranny) and / or communism. That would not have been the Christian thing to do. Doing all possible here in the new world to help the people they left behind unshakle themselves from the godless communism and tyranny is viewed as being 'God's work on earth' for these new immigrants and their children. Simply living a Christian life here in the new world would have been too easy.

There is no indication in the movie that Jesus had anything but a normal childhood. This is very different when compared to the movie about the Dali Lama.

Jesus is not portrayed as a wimp in the 'Last Temptation of Christ'. You should see it.

Cliff,

Good catch! Salman Rushdie and his Satanic Verses are the author and work that you were remembering.

I love the final phrase of your posting - I think Holy Mother Church should use a variation on it next time anyone complains about excommunication for some gravely sinful act of his/hers. I can see it now ...

Many years,

Neil

Who wrote the Satanic Verses? And I am not referring to the novel.

Joe