Analysis: History of the Gospels
SOURCE: Neal Conan, Talk of the Nation (26 February 2004)
(Content and Programming Copyright © National Public Radio, Inc. All rights reserved.)
NEAL CONAN: This is Talk of the Nation. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. We're discussing the new movie The Passion of the Christ. If you'd like to join our discussion - and we're shifting to a history of the Gospels at this point and how accurately the film reflects them - our phone number is 800.989.8255 - 800.989.TALK. The e-mail address is totn@npr.org.
Mel Gibson wove together the screenplay for The Passion of the Christ from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which together tell what may be the most familiar story in the world. But what do we really know about these Gospels, who wrote them exactly, when and why? Are there more accounts beyond the four Gospels that we find in the New Testament and what do we know about the people of Jesus' time and how they lived?
Joining us now is Joanna Dewey, a professor of biblical studies, specializing in the New Testament. She's academic dean of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and she joins us from her office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And welcome to the program.
PROFESSOR JOANNA DEWEY: Thank you.
CONAN: And let me begin by asking you, you've not seen the film, is that right?
DEWEY: That is correct.
CONAN: As a scholar of the New Testament and first century Christians, though, what can you tell us about the people and the politics of the time? Well, for example, I mean, we see three Jews being crucified on one day. Was this a common punishment?
DEWEY: Oh, yeah, very common. In fact, there were times when an earlier king and the Romans regularly crucified small numbers. They also at times crucified hundreds or thousands. They used it as an instrument of terror, an instrument of deterrence, as a spectacle that was a brutal, but even more than that, a humiliating way of death. It was a shame to be crucified. Your family often would disown you if you were crucified. And the Romans used it quite literally as a deterrent.
CONAN: Now...
Prof. DEWEY: They believed in preventative control of groups.
CONAN: Not all Christians believe that the Gospel accounts are literally accurate. If not, then how is it interpreted?
DEWEY: The Gospels are stories based on oral tradition from 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Stories are adapted to new communities, shifting from an Aramaic language to Greek-speaking communities. Some of the early Christian communities were heavily Jewish. Some were mostly not Jewish, Gentile, so the story would get adapted to the needs of the individual communities. Finally gets written down around 70 for the earliest and 80, 90, a hundred for the later Gospels. And things change over time. I mean, we know when we get different witnesses of a car accident the next day, they don't agree.
CONAN: So...
DEWEY: Think 40 years and a change of language, there are going to be changes. Furthermore, the aim of the Gospel composers is to preach the good news to their congregations, not to report accurate history. They're not concerned with accurate history. They're concerned with converting and encouraging their audiences.
CONAN: Well, joining us now is Darrell Bock, a research professor of New Testament studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary, and he's with us from his home in Dallas, Texas. Thanks very much for joining us.
PROFESSOR DARRELL BOCK: My pleasure.
CONAN: And I know you have a different view of the Gospels.
BOCK: Well, I do. I don't think we need quite the disjunction between theology and history that was just suggested; although the outline of how the Gospels were produced I think we're in fairly substantial agreement on; that they did go through a language change, that it did take place somewhere between 40 to 70 years after, depending on which Gospel we're talking about. On that, we're in agreement. But the nature of these Gospel materials and how the adaptations worked that were mentioned, that I also think exist, that's where the differences are.
CONAN: And where's the disagreement, do you think?
BOCK: Well, I think the disagreement has to do with the motivation of the adaptations and whether these stories have been changed to such a degree that the fundamental history that is reflected in the stories has been radically altered or not. My sense is is that the Gospels do a pretty good job of presenting the basic outline of the story and what took place, and therefore, this opposition between theology and history is not something that I see the Gospels doing. I see them working their theology with the history that they're portraying.
CONAN: OK. Here's an e-mail question that we get from Tom Davis in Delray Beach, Florida. "When Mel Gibson was asked about his subdued portrayal of Pontius Pilate, he defended his decision to do that by noting that Rome had called Pilate back twice to admonish him for brutality. Any validity to that?'
BOCK: Yes. In the extra-biblical accounts of Philo and Josephus, we have four incidents that are noted for us between the two of them, and in three of them, there is an alteration in Pilate's intention as a result of action of those above him and those around him. The problem here with these events is that we can only date two of them with certainty. One of them happened at the very beginning of his rule, and one of them happened at the very end of his rule. In fact, it brought an end to his rule. And then the middle two, we don't know exactly where they fit in about the decade that he reigned.
CONAN: Joanna Dewey, I wanted to bring you in on this point. Some critics of the film have said, well, you know, Pilate wasn't this sensitive individual as he's portrayed in the movie, but rather a stubborn and demonstrably cruel man.
DEWEY: I think he was a rather stubborn and demonstrably cruel man. That was, in fact, his job. His job was to keep the peace in Judea and transmit tribute to Rome, and Rome, on the whole, didn't care how he did it; that it was so violent that he got called a couple of times, and ended up getting called means that he probably wasn't gentle. But there was no need to be gentle.
BOCK: I think I agree on her description of Pilate being rather cruel, but the issue here is whether he had a completely free rein. And it's clear that he at times tried to work with the Jewish leadership and did respond sometimes to Jewish pressure, and that's really part of the portrait here. I also disagree with the idea, not expressed by a colleague here, but sometimes said in this discussion, that Pilate's kind of whitewashed for what he does here. I don't think many of us would want a judge who, on the one hand, thinks that we're innocent and yet lets us go to our death on the other. It's a different kind of condemnation for Pilate than it is for the Jewish leadership that comes through the Gospels.
CONAN: He comes off as a fairly weak character.
BOCK: He's caught...
DEWEY: Yes, he does come off very weak.
BOCK: ...in a political bind.
CONAN: Yeah.
DEWEY: I don't think he particularly was weak. And I think the Jewish leaders' job basically was to stay in the good graces of Pilate. If they didn't, they would no longer have been leaders. So in that sense, yes, there was cooperation, but the person who was the patron was Pilate. The person who was the client who had to stay in favor were the Jewish leaders.
BOCK: But there are these other accounts that do indicate that there were times when the Jewish clients complained above his head and that it did render some effect.
DEWEY: That's true. I agree with that.
BOCK: And so I don't think he has quite the free hand that's being suggested here.
CONAN: "Presumably," writes Tim in San Francisco, "to introduce verisimilitude into his picture, Mr. Gibson has the actors speak in Aramaic and in Latin. A Roman soldier in that place and in that time would not have known Latin, but would have spoken Koine" - I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly - "a dialect of classical Greek." Is that right, Mr. Bock?
BOCK: Tyhe Koine Greek, I think, is what he means, and, yes, on this one, I think Gibson got it wrong. The two key languages would have been Aramaic and Greek.
DEWEY: I concur.
CONAN: Yeah. Now in terms of what the film focuses on, the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ, do you think, Darrell Bock, that the film is an accurate representation of what we read in the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
BOCK: I think it is a fairly accurate representation. Now I could tick off probably a half dozen or more things where I would go, "I don't think that's quite the way that it happened,' but I think the general thrust and tone of what you see in the movie does connect with the biblical accounts. I made a list for Beliefnet.com and counted over 70 points of contact between the biblical accounts and this movie.
CONAN: And, obviously, Joanna Dewey, you've not seen it so you can't comment on that.
DEWEY: I actually can comment here from all the reviews and would like to. As I understand the movie, the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the suffering of Jesus, with 15 minutes on the scourging and then the long, drawn-out crucifixion, and when you actually read the Gospel accounts in the narratives, it is not Jesus' suffering that is stressed. What is stressed is the humiliation, the mocking scenes, and what is also stressed - and I think Derrick Bock would agree with me here - that is accord with the will of God shown through the allusions to the Hebrew Bible and through the darkness and the signs. And so I think what the texts are concerned about is not how much Jesus suffered. He suffered less than the other people crucified with him. The Gospel accounts are clear on that. Pilate was surprised he was dead so early, or in John, they didn't have to break his knees because he'd already died. And many of the other people crucified suffered far more hours longer, even days. So I think while, yes, he's portrayed the crucifixion, he has shifted the Gospel stories, which do not focus on the suffering, quite drastically away from the point the Gospels are making.
CONAN: Darrell Bock.
BOCK: Again, I think I agree with her description of the way the Gospels do this, but I think there's an explanation for it. The first is that anyone operating in the first century aware of what crucifixion involved would inherently understand what was involved in crucifixion. That's why it was so shameful, that's why the death was so difficult. She's also right that the thieves next to Jesus probably actually suffered in terms of being on the cross longer than he did.
But what the film gets right is that there was this terrible scourging before someone went to the cross and there is this hanging feature to the way someone dies. It's not pleasant, it's not pretty, and the moment you decide that you're going to portray this event in something close to real time, it is going to, if you will, drag the story out. You can read the entire Passion account in 10 minutes; this is a two-hour movie. We know he hung on the cross for around six hours if we can trust the Gospels, and so this is a kind of in real time portrayal.
CONAN: Let's get some more listeners involved, and let's hear from Chris, who joins us from San Diego.
CHRIS (Caller): Yes, sir.
CONAN: Hi.
CHRIS: I saw the movie last night and I thought it was excellent. I think Dr. Bock was correct. I think what it is, is one of the problems people are having so much with this movie is the fact that we're living in the year 2004. When we read the Gospel accounts, often we can't imagine all the details, the sufferings that Christ went through, whereas the first century readers could. And I think it's just like for us nowadays going to the movies and seeing Saving Private Ryan. The first 10 minutes of that was the account of them storming the beach. Very graphic and very vivid.
CONAN: But are you saying we have to judge it in the political context of where we are today, as well as the political context of where they were at the time of Christ?
CHRIS: No. What I'm trying to say is that I think that people are raving about the violence being gory and graphic and everything. It is a rated-R film. But we've got to remember this is a 12-hour event that's condensed into two hours, and it's not by any means, I think, drawn out and overdone.
CONAN: Joanna Dewey, is the suffering of Christ - is that central to the story of Christianity?
DEWEY: Yeah, I do not believe it is in the early centuries. The focus on the Passion and the sufferings of Christ really doesn't come into Christian piety until the Middle Ages.
BOCK: I disagree here. I think that the issue of Jesus dying for sin, suffering for sin, even the remarks about bearing the cross and the association with the cross that's a part of that, that's in the earliest texts.
DEWEY: The bearing the cross is actually a symbol that you will be persecuted if you follow the reign of God and kingdom of God in this age, and people that carry the cross are not just Jesus but also the Disciples. So that's not something limited to what Jesus did for us but persecution if you challenge the ways of the world, which Jesus certainly did in his teaching of the reign of God.
BOCK: But the modeling for that is the experience of Jesus, which is seen to be an archetypical pattern for what it is that everyone who follows him will go through. So it's in the early texts; the idea of Jesus being a ransom for many is in the early texts. So this is not just a medieval thought.
CONAN: We're speaking...
DEWEY: The emphasis on the Passion as something to focus on and glory in and connect with the suffering is medieval.
CONAN: We're speaking with...
DEWEY: The earlier notion of what Jesus' death accomplished of the first centuries is that Jesus withstood it and the crucifixion was evil, but good overcame it in the resurrection, that Sunday, that Easter is the important thing, not the death.
CONAN: That's Joanna Dewey, who is an academic dean at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We're also speaking with Darrell Bock, who's research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. You're listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR News. And let's get another caller on the line. Alexander is with us from Columbia, South Carolina.
ALEXANDER (Caller): Hello. How are you doing?
CONAN: OK.
ALEXANDER: I just wanted to call and comment on the film The Passion of Christ. From my understanding, the title of the film, The Passion, isn't passion in the traditional sense. It's passion - I think the Greek or Latin derivative of suffering. And a lot of the individuals who have been calling in and a lot of the criticism that I've seen written about the film, everyone's always talking about how there's not really enough focus on Christ's message. The film is not called The Message of Christ, it's called The Passion of Christ, and Mel Gibson's trying to highlight the actual suffering that Christ went through because it was, you know, some serious stuff that he went through. And people don't really understand that.
And the film - basically the whole point of the film is to highlight the suffering that Christ endured. And I think people are, you know, tripping themselves up because they're wanting the film, they're almost trying to co-opt the film to mean what they want it to mean, what they think it should mean rather than, you know, taking it for what it is. It's a film highlighting the suffering that Christ went through, and of course there's all kinds of, you know, imagery, you know, concerning blood in the Bible, the blood of Christ and whatnot, and the film, from what I understand - I haven't yet seen the film; I plan on seeing it today. But from what I understand the film is full of a lot of blood.
And, you know, there's no doubting the religious imagery of blood, you know, concerning the story of Jesus. And when people say that it's, you know, gratuitous use of blood and violence and all that stuff, I have to strongly disagree because, you know, if you are a believer, it is through the blood of Christ that, you know, one attains salvation. And so it would be very, very negligent to downplay the role of the violence, you know, inherent in the last 12 hours of Jesus' life.
CONAN: It's actually called The Passion of the Christ.
ALEXANDER: Right.
CONAN: But, Darrell Bock, passion is a word that is - this sense of that word is misunderstood often.
BOCK: Yes, it is. It comes from the Greek word pathos, which refers to suffering. And so it doesn't carry the connotations that it does in English.
CONAN: And our general usage of that same terminology, Joanna Dewey, is in Passion plays, of which I guess this could be described as I guess the most recent.
DEWEY: Yes.
CONAN: OK. Alexander, thanks very much for the call.
ALEXANDER: Yeah, thank you very much for having me.
CONAN: And see if we can get one more caller in before the break. And this is Ronnie, who's with us from Coral Gables, Florida.
RONNIE (Caller): Yes. And my question and, in fact, my comment - I don't care to see the movie as a Christian, a practicing Christian. I question the intent of Mel Gibson because Christ moves us and teaches us to live now, to live with love, integrity, faith, forgiveness and to earn what we, in fact, have by, one, accepting Christ, believing and confessing. So if one Jewish person is hurt because of this movie, if one individual is hurt because of this movie, what is the purpose? Mel Gibson will profit from this movie. The distributors will profit, but I don't hear people talking about love, integrity, faith, forgiveness.
CONAN: Well, Ronnie, do you believe that the purpose of Mel Gibson and the distributors in making this movie was to inspire violence against Jews?
RONNIE: I don't think that's their intent. I think their intent is, one, to profit. And Christ was not about the profit. That's not what Christ is for. That's not what Christ is. Christ lives now.
CONAN: Ronnie, thanks very much for the phone call. We appreciate it. We're talking about the movie The Passion of the Christ. Of course, you're invited to join us. We're going to take a short break, and continue our conversation after we come back. Our telephone number is 800.989.8255 - 800.989.TALK. Or e-mail us: totn@npr.org. I'm Neal Conan. It's Talk of the Nation from NPR News.
(Announcements)
CONAN: This is Talk of the Nation. I'm Neal Conan in Washington. Tomorrow, it's "Science Friday." Ira Flatow will be here with a conversation with some of the pioneers of the modern computer age. Plus, a new way to get hydrogen. That's tomorrow on Talk of the Nation.
Today we're talking about the history of the Gospels, first century Christians, of course all in the context of the new movie "The Passion of the Christ." We'll be back with Darrell Bock and Joanna Dewey in just a moment. But in addition to the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, from which Mel Gibson wove together his movie, there are others in the ancient world that did not become part of the Bible. And here to tell us what happened to those is Bart Ehrman. He's a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the author of Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. He's with us from his home in Chapel Hill. Good to have you on the show.
PROFESSOR BART EHRMAN: Thanks for having me.
CONAN: How many other Gospels were there?
EHRMAN: Well, we don't know how many there were. We have a couple of dozen other ones that we now have that didn't make it into the New Testament. But we can assume that there were lots more others that were destroyed or otherwise lost.
CONAN: And what happened to them?
Prof. EHRMAN: Well, some of them were declared to be heretical, sort of teaching false teachings about Christ, and so they were burned or otherwise destroyed.
CONAN: So these were - Were they thought to be heretical at the time?
EHRMAN: Some of them were, and so they taught various views of Christ which were popular in some parts of Christianity but ended up losing out when the formers of the canon decided which books to include and which ones to exclude.
CONAN: So how do we know about them then?
EHRMAN: Well, we know about them because the enemies of the heretics, the people that are - I guess we could call them heresiologists - these enemies of the heretics wrote books against their opponents and described some of their writings. But we've also discovered a number of writings in modern times that were ancient Gospels that had been used by one church or another that came to be excluded from the canon.
CONAN: And how historically reliable are they?
EHRMAN: Well, they're probably less historically reliable than the Gospels of the New Testament, but even the New Testament Gospels have historical problems, as some of your comments have indicated already today. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are our earliest Gospels and they're probably the best historical sources, but there are other Gospels that are pretty early, including a Gospel called the Gospel of Thomas and another one called the Gospel of Peter, both of which we still have.
CONAN: And when were they written?
EHRMAN: They were probably written in the early second century, so probably 10 or 15 years after the Gospel of John, although some scholars date the Gospel of Thomas back to the first century, claiming that it was earlier even than our canonical four.
CONAN: And are these taken seriously today?
EHRMAN: Oh, they're taken very seriously for a variety of reasons. There may be some materials found in both the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, for example, that are historically reliable materials that otherwise escape the Gospel writers of the New Testament. But also these books are taken seriously because they show us very clearly what some Christians were thinking about Christ in the early centuries after his death.
CONAN: Well, hang in with us. I want to bring back our guests, Darrell Bock, a research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and Joanna Dewey, professor of biblical studies at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And let's talk a little bit about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and these other Gospels, and who decided which ones got to be put into what we now know as the New Testament? Joanna Dewey?
DEWEY: Gradually the leaders of the church who were elite men decided which ones. The first group, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were pretty well decided by consensus, that churches were using them. Then there became more of a debate whether to include the others. I mean, there's a lovely story of a bishop in the second century asked about the Gospel of Peter and his first reaction is, of course, read it in church. That's what canonical basically means. And then he went and read it himself and thought, no, that's not quite such a good idea. I don't like some of its ideas. So in many ways, it's did the theology agree with the theology of the church leaders in the 300s?
CONAN: And, Darrell Bock, is this - I assume, like any other human enterprise, politics enters into who gets to tell whose story?
BOCK: Yeah. Eventually I think that's true. But I think in the case of the four Gospels, as Joanna mentioned, these four Gospels rose to prominence pretty early, and it wasn't just decisions in the 300s that did this. These Gospels were well-established in the second century. So we're talking a whole 100, 125 years before some of the councils that finalized the process. But the Gospels were there pretty much from the point where we can begin to trace the process.
DEWEY: Yes, by the late-100s. By about close to 200, I'd agree.
CONAN: Yeah. And, Bart Ehrman, I just wanted to ask you, if they've been finding more of these, conceivably there are still more out there?
EHRMAN: Oh, yeah, absolutely. They come to be discovered every now and then. There was a new Gospel that was discovered, actually, in a museum in Berlin, in a collection of documents that they had. They didn't realize what they were sitting on, but there was a Gospel written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, that two American scholars just happened upon and published just a few years ago. The Gospel probably dates from the second century that describes Christ going to his cross.
CONAN: Well, Bart Ehrman, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
EHRMAN: You're welcome.
CONAN: Bart Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the author of Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. And he was with us from Chapel Hill, in North Carolina. And now let's get back to the phone calls. And our next caller is Tom, and Tom's with us from San Francisco.
TOM (Caller): Yes.
CONAN: You're on the air, Tom. Go ahead.
TOM: Yeah. You know, I'm a Roman Catholic by birth and baptism, multigenerational Irish and Italian Catholics. I was duped into seeing this film yesterday because it was Ash Wednesday. But I have to say it was a relentless bloodbath, a disproportionate emphasis on the evil of the Sanhedrin.
CONAN: The Sanhedrin is the trial held by the Jewish elders.
TOM: Yes. You know, I mean, one of the Ten Commandments is thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor. But zealots will always ignore tenets of their faith in order to push their private prejudices. To me, Mel Gibson is like the Leni Riefenstahl of American Catholicism. Leni Riefenstahl said, "All I did was film athletic events." She didn't admit that it was always in sunlight, the blond, blue-eyed men were always gazing into the setting or rising sun. She didn't - never admitted to emphasizing her own particular viewpoint despite the evidence in front of her.
CONAN: Well, Leni Riefenstahl also filmed Hitler's rallies at Nuremberg and other places. So I think that...
TOM: And refused to seek out, even though there's evidence that she knew about Dachau and endless suffering of the Jewish people in there. Mel Gibson invents things in this film for what he thinks or portrays as a truer relation of what really happened. They wanted to quote the pope, whom he doesn't trust - Mel Gibson does not trust the pope, but for financial gain, he'll quote him, however, whether it's true or not, "This is as it was." Mel Gibson invents a character, this satanic character in this movie, and places him amongst the Sanhedrin, while he portrays Pontius Pilate as a rational, empathetic, objective human being. Pontius Pilate was as bloody a dictator as Adolf Hitler.
CONAN: Well, perhaps not as Adolf Hitler. Let's not put him in Hitler's class, Tom.
TOM: Well...
CONAN: But anyway, let's get back...
TOM: At least Pontius Pilate crucified people in public. He didn't cart them off to camps so that Mel Gibson's father could one day deny that millions were slaughtered in secret.
CONAN: Well, I think we'd want to retain a sense of proportion here, Tom. But anyway, let's get back to the point that seems to be central to this discussion, and one of the points you raise is about raising this question about the Sanhedrin and the responsibility of the Jews. A caller brought it up just before the break as well. And, Darrell Bock, that's the question of: Does the picture either incite or inspire or portray anti-Semitism?
BOCK: I don't think so. I think that what you're seeing is a first century religious conflict that ended up in Pilate's hands with Pilate having the responsibility for making the final call, which he did. And even though he's portrayed as doing it reluctantly, in the end, he did say yes and was responsible for the crucifixion. Both Christian and Jewish historians hold him responsible for the crucifixion. So in that sense, the movie reflects what happened. And I think that the Roman soldiers are just as responsible in this film, in fact, in some ways more so responsible than anything the Jewish leaders are doing in this film.
CONAN: You're listening to Talk of the Nation, which is coming to you from NPR News. And let's get Jerry on the line. Jerry's with us from Burlington, Vermont.
JERRY (Caller): Yeah. I'm very appreciative of what that gentleman just now said, and I really think that it's demonstrable already - by the way, I disagree; I think he's worse than Leni Riefenstahl because she didn't do such a graphic thing, anti-Semitic thing explicitly. I didn't like her, and I dislike her intently, but I don't think she was anywhere near as bad as Mel Gibson is showing himself to be.
This guy is avowedly a right-wing Catholic. I mean, this fella just before me was talking about that. He has absolutely no apology for what he's doing. I'm not too crazy about the religious person you have on your show right now. If that - yesterday on Peter Jennings, they showed a church in the Midwest that had a sign up in front that says: Confirmed, the Jews killed Christ. And then they had a reference to the Sanhedrin, or however you say that.
But in any case, this is already happening, and I expect you're going to see - just mark my words, you're going to see violence against Jews in the next few months. And I think he wanted it to be that way. I do. I genuinely think he wanted it to be that way. And I think a lot of the apologists for him also want that. It's being seized on by anti-Semites, and it should be. I mean, that's a great propaganda film in their arsenal now.
CONAN: Well, Darrell Bock, I think you probably want a chance to respond to that.
BOCK: Well, I would. Anyone who tries to use this film for anti-Semitism has not understood the message of the film, and it would be an abuse of what the film is about.
CONAN: OK. Jerry, thanks very much for the phone call.
JERRY: In the world...
CONAN: OK.
JERRY: ...that doesn't seem to be what reality is dealing with.
CONAN: Well, some people have said, Joanna Dewey, that - they have called Mel Gibson a zealot. And, again, you've not seen the picture, obviously, you've read reviews of it. But that this could intentionally or not - and I don't think a lot of people question Mel Gibson's sincerity. They may question his aesthetic judgments and some of his other judgments but not his sincerity. But do you fear that it can inspire anti-Semitism?
DEWEY: I think it can't help to. I would agree with Derek Bock that a few of the Jewish leaders did connive with Pilate to get rid of him, though I would say it was not primarily for religious threat. I would think it was equally political and economic. However, I do think the film, by portraying the emphasis on the Jews, does encourage the belief that has been taught in some churches that the Jews killed Jesus. And we have seen the disastrous results. And I think the results of a theology or in this case a movie are an important part of its message. And if what it does is encourage violence against Jews, then the movie is a bad movie or an evil movie. I'm making a moral judgment, I am not making an aesthetic judgment.
CONAN: OK. Let's see if we get one more caller in. This is Michael, who's with us from Jacksonville, Florida.
MICHAEL (Caller): Hi, Neal.
CONAN: Hi.
MICHAEL: I just wanted to say it seems that the people who, I guess it was 10 or 12 years ago, were so against The Last Temptation of Christ have been the people who are really supporting The Passion, and the people who were so supportive of The Last Temptation of Christ are really railing against The Passion now. And I think, you know, it's both sides of a hypocritical coin, and the movie really should stand as whether it's a good movie or not, not, you know, whether there's some alleged anti-Semitism in it or whatever..
CONAN: So...
MICHAEL: ...bad things people think about it.
CONAN: So remove the moral element from it and just look at it as a movie?
MICHAEL: Absolutely.
CONAN: Would you agree with that, Darrell Bock?
BOCK: I think it's difficult to remove the moral element from the movie. I do agree with the caller that the film needs to be assessed on its own terms, both at an artistic level, as well as in terms of what it is attempting to portray. And I think it tries to do this fairly carefully by indicating the complex combination of factors that led to Jesus' death.
CONAN: And, clearly, Joanna Dewey, you were just speaking a moment ago, that you don't think the moral element can be removed.
DEWEY: And I am also concerned for those who see it. I agree it is a Passion movie, but for those who see it as this is the core of the Christian message. That I think bothers me as much - as a Christian, I'm making this statement - as the anti-Semitic impact the movie may have.
CONAN: Michael, thank...
MICHAEL: Can I say one more thing, Neal?
CONAN: I'm sorry?
MICHAEL: Can I say one more thing?
CONAN: If you keep it very short.
MICHAEL: Yeah. At hatrack.com, Orson Scott Card has a great review of the movie.
CONAN: OK. Thanks very much, Michael. We appreciate it.
MICHAEL: You're welcome. Thank you. Bye.
CONAN: And I thank our guests today for their time. Joanna Dewey, a professor of biblical studies and academic dean at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with us from her office in Cambridge. Thank you very much, Joanna.
DEWEY: Thank you.
CONAN: And Darrell Bock, thank you for your time today.
BOCK: My pleasure.
CONAN: Darrell Bock, a research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He spoke with us from his home in Dallas, Texas. In Washington, I'm Neal Conan, NPR News.
Back to JESUS THE MAN