NT Gateway Weblog

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

---