Rating: 
Summary: Misguided effort, and will not help
Review: There are big problems with Gibson's movie and book. In Gibson's Jerusalem the Roman authorities are seen as essentially doing the bidding of the Jewish leaders. But most biblical scholars agree the Jewish leaders served more as representatives of the Jewish community, who attempted to deal with its far more powerful Roman occupiers.
There are anti-Semitic implications because Gibson depicts Jewish leaders and Jewish crowd members as grotesque and monstrous throughout the whole movie, whereas the Romans are not shown as such. Why? It's generally believed that Gibson's take on it was influenced by the writings of a Catholic Augustinian nun who claimed to have received "visions" of Jesus's final hours. Her writings depict detail regarding Jesus's scourging and crucifixion, the Jews' role in his death, as well as Pilate's role as the ruthless governor who became a weak and unwilling pawn of Jewish blood lust.
That is not historical fact, but Gibson presents it as reality and that presents a real problem, especially when he presents it in such overly dramatic and grossly exaggerated violent way. Besides that, throughout the movie Gibson takes liberty in injecting moments of supernatural imagery, all of it depicting the presence of evil all around Jesus, to show that he overcame it.
Gibson insists he intended to produce a message of "tolerance, love and forgiveness," and he claims to reject his father's blatant anti-Semitic beliefs. But in creating and focusing on extremely gruesome and savage violence and painting a very damaging and misleading picture of Jewish responsibility for it, did he really produce the story he says he intended? Didn't he forget that Jesus and most of those who followed him were Jews? Didn't he actually slight the real message of the Christ regarding tolerance, love and forgiveness? Perhaps worst of all, Gibson's emphasis on the idea that Jesus "died for the sins of humanity" is misguided and only fuels the aggression of the Religious Right. It focuses on the dogma of the 4th Century Nicene Creed and ignores the real issue, that Jesus allowed himself to be arrested, knowing he would probably be killed, to provide a good example of the loving and forgiving pacifist and martyr. I don't know if we'll ever find out when that doctrine about Jesus "dying for our sins" was created, and whether it was actually written by the writers of the gospels decades after Jesus died, or revised later in the 4th Century as the then-new "Holy Roman Empire" was created. But whenever the doctrine was created, it makes no sense, if you really think about it. What does make sense is that Jesus showed us a perfect example of the loving and forgiving pacifist and martyr, who would rather judge not, resist not evil, love his enemies, and turn the other cheek. THAT is real Christian doctrine.
Rating: 
Summary: Latin and Aramaic
Review: A previous reviewer called "The Passion" a handsome book, but then asked "Why Latin and Aramaic?" claiming that the use of these languages "presents a serious academic issue". He then added that "any school boy in England knows that the original version of the New Testament was in Greek, not Aramaic and certainly not Latin" and that "the more common spoken language in the area was Greek". The reviewer ended by calling these "significant historical gaffes". Well, I'm no school boy in England, but I think that I know why Mel chose to use Latin and Aramaic in his film/book. He had the Romans speak Latin because...[drum roll]...the Romans of that day spoke Latin. The whole region was under Roman rule at the time of Christ, and Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. Similarly, Mel had the Jews speak Aramaic because the Jews of that day (including Jesus) spoke Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the Jews since they returned from captivity in Babylon. The Gospel according to Matthew [27:46] even records Jesus' last words in Aramaic, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" The Jews used Hebrew only in religious services in the synagogues (if at all). Many (most?) Jews could not converse in Hebrew; it has been supplanted by Aramaic years before. Neither the Romans nor the Jews used Greek on a daily basis. It is simply not true that "the more common spoken language in the area was Greek." Yes, Greek was widely spoken; it was the language of education and of commerce and of more. It is well known (even here in Florida) that Greek was the lingua franca of known world at that time. However, none of those facts make Greek "the more common spoken language in the area". True, the New Testament was written in Greek. ((Although there is serious debate over the First Gospel. There are those who think that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (although no Hebrew text survives).)) But, the New Testament was not even begun to be written for another thirty years. What does the language of the yet-to-be-written text of the New Testament have to do with the spoken dialog of Romans and Jews during the last hours of the life of Christ? On that day, the Romans spoke Latin, and the Jews spoke Aramaic--just like in Mel's movie. I see no significant historical gaffes.
Rating:
Summary: My take...
Review: Well Christ spoke in Aramaic and Romans spoke in Latin. What language the Bible is in I don't think matters to Gidson he wanted the movie to apear as life lie as possible.....Also I think that with this movie Gidson is reaching out to all people not just the ones that read the bible. Some aren't reached by words others are. Watching this movie, knowing that you (we humans), were the cause of it because of sin it's hard to stand, but also the Passion is a beautiful thing. It shows just how much God loved us. I don't think showing it on screen will hurt anyone. If anything it will help them to grow closer to God.
Rating:
Summary: a bit of perspective
Review: i am astonished over all the hype over this movie and book. this is all for entertainment; one celebrity's interpretation of events. rather than dwell on this, we should all follow jesus' lessons and teachings. people disregard his teachings all the time but then pretend this book and movie somehow matter. it is entirely hypocrotical. we should follow the christ, not use his death for entertainment value.
Rating:
Summary: Christ did this for you!
Review: Mel Gibson is quoted as saying "a prick of His finger would have been enough, but He went all the way", what does this mean? The images contained in this book--as well as the beautiful commentary by Mel Gibson--capture the extent to which Jesus went to forgive us our sins. Why was the violence necessary? Again, why not just a "prick of the finger"? Many commentators have said the movie--and in respect, this book--are too graphic. Why couldn't Jesus have saved us with one drop of blood? Because Jesus chose to be the Pascal Sacrafice. He chose to truly lay down His life for us--which is reflected in this book. And, yes, the blood is necessary, in this respect. Mel Gibson, in his beautiful introductory, lays-out why he made this move; what it means to him. This is an actor who had it all--has it all--who was voted "One of the Most Beautiful People" in the world by People Magazine many years running. But what does it mean? What does it mean to have it all and be beautiful? It's not enough, according to Mel Gibson. It's not enough. In this book you will see graphic images; but they are poignant--poignant in the sense of cinematic beauty and the truth they tell: that this man, this Son of God--this God in Man--endured all this for you; humanity, also, but more personally you. I was confronted with a crises in my life, and in fact I used to be an atheist, but I myself had a "mystical" experience, and wrote a book, "The Catholic Mystical Tradition". Mel Gibson, too, had a crisis in his life, and he was able to turn his life around due to his meditations on the "Passion" of Christ; His blood washes us all of our sins, and this blood is, was, unfortunatly necessary. We see death and horror all around us: what else makes sense of why God allows this, except that He allowed His own Son to endure a horrific death. And why is this? Because of free will. This book shows this horrific death, and, again, the violent, horrific, nature of Christ's death WAS necessary given the task He undertook: to forgive us our sins.
Rating: 
Summary: Handsome Book...But Why Latin and Aramaic?
Review: Just a brief note to add to the debate over Mel Gibson's film, and in this case the companion book. A very handsome publication that will be well-received by those who are pleased with the film. But the book presents a serious academic issue (as does the film). Photos are underscored with passages from the New Testament in Latin and Aramaic (languages used in the film with English subtitles). Any school boy in England knows that the original version of the New Testament was in Greek, not Aramaic and certainly not Latin. Indeed, the more common spoken language in the area was Greek as well. Significant historical gaffes like this certainly do not add to the credibility of the subject at hand. But here is the bottom line. This is a film, not holy scripture. There will be popcorn and raisonettes at the snack bar and most likely some interesting coming attractions on the screen as well. There are more vital issues in the world today than attaching grave issues to a movie or a companion book.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful, inspiring book!
Review: I couldn't put this book down! The pages are filled with dramatic scenes from the movie and the life of Christ. A powerful and prolific work!
Rating:
Summary: A great book
Review: This is an excellent book, I look forward to seeing the film
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent!
Review: The book is beautiful. Wonderful, large color phtos from the film. The lighting and color tones are excellent. The shots are terrific. The subjects are amazing. I am now even more anxious to see this film - if that's possible. My complaint is that amazon doesn't carry the Catholic Edition of this book with the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible verses, which is what I bought. It's a shame. The one they do have has the verses from the New Living translation. Oh well. A must-buy in any case for fans of this extraordinary film.
Rating:
Summary: Way to go Mel!
Review: Thank you Mel, for bringing the suffering of our Lord to the general public. There will be no way folks can close their eyes and ignore this one. As a person of Jewish heritage who accepted Jesus several years ago, and who now considers herself a Christian, I can understand the fear and anger surrounding this movie. To believe in Jesus means you must fall out of your comfort zone and give up everything you ever believed in. This is frightening to many people. So they cover it up with anger. As for me, I felt Jesus calling me even as a child, so I really didn't have that much to give up, to be honest. I'm just so sorry I waited so long. To fall out of your comfort zone and fall into the arms of Jesus makes your prior comfort zone a joke. THIS is total love beyond any comfort zone you once held of value.
| 
