I really enjoyed reading all of these responses and I only wish that the conversion could've gone on longer. I think that we could discuss this for another whole class period. I used to believe that Mel had too much violence in the movie, but now my opinions have changed. In the Bible they use the word "scourged" to describe part of the crucifixion. Scourged is a word to describe intense beating and torturing. Even though the gospels didn't dwell on the intensity and amount of pain Jesus was under, it still happened. He really was ripped to shreds with the whips of glass, he really was wrapped in vinegar after the intense whipping, he really had a crown of jagged thorns hammered into his skull, he really did have large, rusty nails slammed through his hands and feet, and he really did experience pain as shown in the movie. Also, as a Christian I don't believe that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, rather I put the blame on my own shoulders. I believe that Mel did a wonderful job of portraying this in the movie. Critics can sit back and say that this film is anti-Semitic, but in all actuality, it wasn't. If you disagree, watch it again and keep in mind that the priests and the governor aren't Jewish. Keep in mind that Mary was a Jew, the outspoken men during the scene we watched were Jewish (they didn't agree with what was going on), the young girl that brings Jesus water during his struggle to carry the cross was Jewish, and the man that defends Jesus while carrying his cross for him is Jewish.

To respond to some of the earlier comments, Judas was not the reason Jesus was killed. Of course he was the one that told the Roman soldiers where Jesus was, but ultimately it was Jesus that convicted himself. He could've easily said that he was not guilty of the comments, but this was his father's will. Jesus knew of the betrayal way before it even entered Judas' mind. Also, of course Jesus was "vulnerable" and scared. Don't forget that he was still a human with flesh and a paper cut still gave him pain as it would me or you. Who cares if you are the son of God and this is your destiny, you would still be petrified knowing that within hours you will undergo pain to the most extreme. Am I wrong? I wouldn't be able to do it. And finally, the Devil doesn't appear in the gospels because he didn't appear in the original. This is just something Mel incorporated to give the film a missing quality. I could go on and on about this because I'm so very passionate about this story and about my beliefs, but I'll go ahead and stop. Thanks for all the great responses, and I'm truly sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes with my response.

After watching the clips from the movie I now know that John was there which is why his gospel is so different from the others. Also, as we discussed a little in class, the movie shows Satan telling Jesus that he can't handle the burden of our sins, whereas, none of the gospels describe that small event. After reading Jessica's second response, it is interesting to see that a definition of the word passion deals with Jesus.

Bridget

After seeing the movie, I noticed a few notable aspects that appeared to differ from the gospels to Gibson's version of the events. In reading the bible, I didn't necessarily picture the events as "dramatically" as they were portrayed in the film. I'm assuming this mostly had to the do with the audience that Gibson was trying to target, making the film more enjoyable for aesthetic purposes. For instance, before Jesus is arrestedd he is in a dark, eerie looking forest. Jesus also appears to be more "vulnerable" and scared than he is portrayed in the gospels. There is also the scene with Judas kissing Jesus, which is shown in slow motion for added effect. It's interesting that Gibson would chose Luke's account of the event as opposed to that of Matthew, Mark, or John. Finally, in the gospels the "fight scene" with the guards didn't seem very played-up like it seemed to be in the movie. This, too, was most likely added to give the movie a more interesting edge.

Kristen

As discussed in class, it is very interesting to think about what the word passion really means. The word itself sets up expectations, from dictionary.com the first meaning of passion is ardent love. The fifth definition reads as follows:

a. The sufferings of Jesus in the period following the Last Supper and including the Crucifixion, as related in the New Testament.
b. A narrative, musical setting, or pictorial representation of Jesus’s sufferings.

Does this more common interpretation of the word lead to disappointment in the film adaptation? Could this be why people think that the film should focus on the life of Jesus rather than his death?

I agree that the focus of the Passion film is not focusing on the reality of Jesus' life, rather it is on the brutality of His death. This is obviously a crucial part of the christian faith, so i feel it is a beautiful film about difficult facts. These passages of the bible offer insight into the daily life of Christ and the disciples, presented by 4 men, of whom three were present for these events. Mark's account is second-hand, as he was not one of the 12 disciples.

I noticed only minor differences between the first three readings but the last section was written differently, leaving out the part of the betrayel by Judas.The different versions to the day Jesus was arrested, I am fascinated to see how this discussion plays out and how the movie ties these 4 versions together.

These readings are just the same story told by different disciples. Their point of view changes slightly form one to another, but this happens all the time with groups of people. I don’t have much knowledge the bible or its works. Jesus knows that Judas betrayed him, and forgiving him is a gift that Jesus gives him self? Or is forgiveness a gift you give yourself not the moral of this biblical tale? Maybe I have it all wrong and what we should really learn from this story is how you will be dragged away and punishes for your religious beliefs. This lesson has been ignored since B.C. and current day rules don’t know any better either. Also, on another note Jesus is killed as a result of Judas actions lets not ignore that part. In the hood you would be killed and disgraced for being a rat.
Whitney Curd

John Killough Wangel

All four of the readings cover the same general story, while all of them have slight changes in detail. The books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar and are just different accounts of the same story. John, on the other hand, introduces the denial of Peter among other changes. Also in John, Jesus lets Judas know that he knew of his betrayal without him kissing his hand as he is arrested. It shouldn't be a problem to incorporate the elements of all the stories into the movie from what i understand.

These four readings have many similarities, but there are a few minor details that sets each account apart from the next. I noticed first that the incident with Judas kissing Jesus' hand is different in each gospel. In Matthew, Jesus says "Friend, do what you came for" (Matthew 26:50); he seems to know what is going to happen to him. In Mark Jesus asks if he is leading a rebellion, seeming less omnipotent, while in Luke Jesus does not address the arrest at all except telling his men not to harm the crowd. Finally, in John Judas doesn't kiss Jesus' hand at all, rather Jesus is arrested willingly when asked his identity. John's version also reads more like a story rather than a play-by-play of events like the other three versions.

Kristen Cone

Lindsey W
this couldn't have been at a better time. you get to see from 4 different points of view what happened to Jesus the day he was arrested. you see what some people remember and what others forgot. it shows what events remained in their memory. some told about being in front of the Sanhedrin, others said that Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss and another said the guards had to ask Jesus his name. I'm interested to see where you take this discussion.

All of the stories follow the same basic story line, but many of the minor details are different. I noticed that in the Luke version, Jesus heals the servants ear, but he doesn't in any of the others. In John, instead of one of the twelve betraying Jesus, Jesus actually gives himself up to the enemy. At least in the selections given, John is also the only chapter that discusses Peter's denials. I'm pretty excited to see how The Passion incorporates all of the chapters.

The readings feel very similar to each other, but with minor details that may change the whole outlook on the event. Things like the man and his garments or Peter's denial of Jesus. But what I like most about the different entries is the human element each one can bring. Small touches like the disciples giving themselves titles like "the one Jesus loved the most". Or when they mention who got to Jesus' tomb first. Think about it, one of the most important moments in history and they mention who won the race to the tomb. Little trivial stuff like that makes the Bible feel a little more down to earth. Helps relate to the audience a little more. As far as "The Passion" goes... well it's interesting to think about it after Mel's anti-semite rants. Wish we could all just go back to his Braveheart days before he lost his cool.

The Gospel of Mark and Matthew are very similar; the main difference I found was in Mark 26:51-52. Matthew does not mention “a young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment” that follows Jesus. In all four gospels Jesus knows what is going to happen, and that Judas is the man that betrayed him. In John, however, Judas does not kiss Jesus. Jesus confronts the group of men with Judas, asking them, “Who is it you want?” (John 18:4) John also contains another fundamental difference that distinguishes it from the other gospels, Peter’s First Denial. In this section, from John 18:15-18, Peter is asked by a girl at the door “You are not one of his disciples, are you?” and Peter replies, “I am not.” The reading from Luke does not mention Peter at all, nor does it address Jesus going to Caiaphas before the high priest. Mark and Matthew both describe Peter as an onlooker who waits with the guards by the fire for the outcome. I have seen the film before, but I don’t recall if it includes Peter’s denial, it will be interesting to see what gospel the film makers choose to portray.

My favorite part of these readings is when Jesus calls Judas out for betraying him. He does this in a discrete way so that only Judas realizes that Jesus knew of his betrayal before their confrontation that night. This dialogue between Jesus and Judas, however only appears in the Luke and Matthew passages. By including it, it proves to Judas that Jesus, like his father, is all-knowing and there is nothing that he can hide from him. I also gain a sense of satisfaction in the belief that Judas will be further haunted by his grief because of these few words that are exchanged between the two.

Nicholas Walsh

I didn't find much of a difference in Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's sections that we were supposed to read. However, I found a difference in the way John portrayed the story. He didn't changed the events that happened, but he just wrote it in a different way. Also, in John's version, Judas does not give a kiss of betrayal and it seems more descriptive than the others.

Bridget Kaiser