Speaking as an agnostic who is also an amateur scholar of religious history, some of Paula Fredriksen's "scholarship," at least that I've read, isn't exactly worthy of the name. Hell, you can tell just from this:

Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact.

Those dates for the composition of the Gospels are in line with that of most historians--of the early 20th century. But seeing as how fragments of Mark have been discovered that date to circa 55-65 CE, and most modern scholars assume that Matthew, Mark, and Luke used a common source or source in composing the Gospels that dates even earlier, this point alone shows Fredriksen's ignorance of biblical scholarship. But hey, she's ignorant of Roman history, as well.

"The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution, as opposed to a private murder, was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition. Jesus's death on the cross was Pilate's way of telling Jerusalem's Jews, who had gathered in the holy city for the paschal holiday, to desist from any thought of rebellion."

Sorry, but no. Pilate, in particular, was a rather gruesome son of a bitch who ordered executions all the time. And crucifixion as punishment was used, not just for rebels, but for other crimes such as murder and even THEFT. I could go on, but I think those illustrate the problems in relying on Fredriksen as a source.

I'm not even a tenth of a scholar, but wasn't he crucified along with two common criminals?

I have some comments here.

Alex,

You're confusing an identified "lost text", and a number of other identified precursors to the three Gospels with the Gospels themselves. The Gospels represent independent compilations of existing traditions, testimony, and the said lost text, which if I remember my Gospel scholarship properly, was a collection of "sayings of Jesus", usually called "Q". They appear throughout both Matthew and Luke, and intermittently in Mark. John, of course, is wildly different from the rest of the Gospels, and I'd bet that this Gibson production is heavily reliant on John, given the rumbles I've been hearing. But "Q" isn't an actual text - it's a reconstruction from the four Gospels, based on textual analysis. There's still some controversy about whether Mark used "Q" at all. BTW, I found an interesting site on “Q”. Don't take my word for it - I just took some courses in college on the subject.

Her main point stands, which is that the Gospels are not internally congruent in a narrative sense. For one thing, they're aimed at different audiences. Mark is clearly aimed at Palistinian Jewry, while Luke is more aimed at the Jewish diaspora, and John at Gentiles.

The bit that really sets off my bullshit meter about this mess is this "filmed in Latin and Aramaic" thing, subtitled or not. That's preposterous, and it suggests a certain detachment from reality that is somewhat worrying, given the Gibson family's known history of reactionary religious politics.

There's no need for a hypothetical text called Q. The synoptic gospels were written in the order they appear in the Bible. Matthew was first (the Greek being a translation of an Aramaic original, as Eusebius says). Then Mark wrote his gospel based on Matthew (hence the similarities) and Peter's teachings. Then Luke wrote his gospel based on Matthew and Mark (hence the similarities) and his own "investigative work", such as interviewing Mary.

Er - are you joking, or do you honestly believe that? I mean, if it's part of your specific religious belief system, I won't argue with it - I used to work for a Baptist who firmly believed in the divine inspiration of the King James Bible and only the King James Bible, so whatever floats your boat.

If that's not a religiously mandated belief, I'd recommend that you read some of that website I pointed to earlier. There are scholars that favor the Matthean priority, but they're in the minority, and I have to say that I find the arguments in favor of a Markian priority with "Q" quite persuasive. I mis-spoke from memory earlier, btw - Mark isn't held to derive from "Q" and it's Matthew that was specifically aimed at the Palistinian Jews.

I found myself reading the gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" due to this thread earlier today. Interesting book - it's supposed to be a lot like "Q" might have been - a collection of Jesus's sayings, without any real narrative. Of course, it isn't "Q" - the text is distinct from the "Q" elements that appear in Matthew and Luke, and the experts say that "Thomas" is closer in theology to John than the synoptics - but it's still interesting. More "the Kingdom of God is manifest" than "the Kingdom of God is promised to come".

Gibson should just let Abe Foxman see the film and determine whether or not it deserves the hatchet-job treatment it got from Fredriksen. In several news articles about Gibson's sneak preview showing, Jack Valenti said he didn't think the film was anti-Semitic, and Drudge supposedly felt the same way. And after this week's Ramirez cartoon flap, we sure as hell know that Drudge would be scandal mongering about the film if he thought he could spin it that way.

Mitch and Alex both have good points. Alex has the most prescient as he points out the bias and schollarly ineptitude of the cited article by Fredriksen. I understand the close scrutiny that this movie could fall under, especially if there were suspicions of anti-semtism. But Fredriksen quickly abandons her theme to wander into ill-informed questioning and philosophizing about Jesus Christ and events surrounding his life and death. I followed the article just fine until I reached Fredriksen's speculation over why Jesus was crucified. Involving points so poorly constructed and irrelevant only defeats and discredits the point of the article. Citing the article to make a point could look foolish. Citing it, as Joe did, at least serves to make lively conversation and conjecture. That never hurts.

You who are trying to smear Fredriksen's reputation as a scholar are forgetting that the script was reviewed and criticized by Fredriksen AND a committee of Catholic and Jewish scholars who are ALL New Testament scholars, AND some Catholic bishops also expressed dismay about it.

AND Gibson's father has expressed contempt for Vatican II including its teachings about antisemitism, and Gibson has agreed with many of his father's positions (although not specifically the one about antisemitism).

By trying to make this be all about Fredriksen's scholarship (whose reputation you are not making a dent in BTW) you are ignoring the real issues that this article raises.

BTW here is the report on the script by the Catholic scholars.

From the intro:

"We are Roman Catholic professors who were part of an ad hoc group of scholars recently called together by expert staff members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League to review a version of the screenplay of the Mel Gibson film, The Passion. . . . We were asked to evaluate whether that version of the screenplay would present problems in terms of Catholic teaching about Jews and the death of Jesus. That is what we did and we were unanimous in our assessment. . . .

. . . our report did not represent an official statement of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. . . . the four of us are members of the Advisory Committee for Catholic-Jewish Relations of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, and our report was assembled under the leadership of a staff person in that office. All of us, moreover, are active in Catholic professional organizations, such as the Catholic Theological Society of America and the Catholic Biblical Association, and serve on the boards of numerous Catholic institutes and institutions.

. . . . Contrary to a recent media report, we have not apologized to Icon or anyone else for evaluating the script. Neither have we "withdrawn" it. We stand by it.

. . . Our evaluation was founded upon magisterial teaching documents of the Catholic Church, which were extensively quoted in a four page appendix in our eighteen-page confidential evaluation. Suggestions that our criteria for evaluating the screenplay were not authoritative Catholic teaching compromise the magisterium's absolute rejection of the long-lived "Christ-killers" libel against Jews, a rejection enshrined in the Second Vatican Council declaration Nostra Aetate and subsequent Vatican and episcopal conference documents."

Here's Paula Fredriksen's CV:

http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/fredriksen/PF2002cv.htm

Ignorant, unreliable....I'm laughing, really.

I may be a little late to post a comment here, but here goes: Paula Fredriksen may have misspoken a bit in saying sedition was the only thing Romans crucified anyone for, but she is essentially right in saying this was a Roman affair. The crucifixion points to that as does the presence of Roman soldiers at Jesus' arrest (John 18:3). There is a lot more information to confirm this.

The real issue is: Does anybody pay attention to what is in the Gospels or is everyone just happy promoting their own rewritten version? Here is a big, startling fact for you: The Gospels do not say that Judas betrayed Jesus. It's a mistranslation of a neutral word, as most scholars now admit. See William Klassen's book "Judas". I discuss all this and more on my blogspot and Web site (linked on the blog). Jewish leaders had nothing to do with Jesus' death and, in fact, tried to save his life. All the clues are in the Gospels, if only anyone paid attention.
http://www.historicaljesusghost.com
http://historicaljesusghost.blogspot.com