I do not ask if you believe in vicarious atonement--you answered that quite clearly--but you did not state if it was your faith or your theology. I ask this: Do you think that I and others must also accept vicarious atonement to be Christian?

A second issue is the relationship between Jews and Christians as well as the dangers of anti-Semitism still possible from misunderstanding any Passion Story, Play, or Film. I emphasize immediately that even if all of Jerusalem was responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, anti-Semitism would always have been as invalid as anti-Italianism arising from the Roman roots of Pilate and his soldiers. But, granted that, my question is how, as a conscientious Christian, knowing what has happened across two millennia, one should tell or film "The Passion of the Christ" so as to cauterize the potential venom of anti-Semitism. This second question is the one on the cover of my book as "Who Killed Jesus?" (1995) and on the cover of the recent Newsweek (2/16/04) as "Who (Really) Killed Jesus?"

One can respond correctly, working within a theology of vicarious atonement, that it was our sins which killed Jesus. How, then, must that be shown visually in a film? In what or in whom do you incarnate “our sins” as active agents? Let me point the question as accurately as possible. I am not, for here and now, discussing the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts of that “crowd” before Pilate. I simply ask this: If Mel Gibson, or you Ben, or I myself, set out to visualize “the crowd” mentioned in the gospels, how many people are we imagining and how did we get to that number? We cannot answer that because our sins are many, we need thousands of extras, and, of course, they must all be Jews. If we fill their streets or our screens, how did we come to that conclusion? That is an historical question for both of us.

What do you think, Ben, should be the size and purpose of Mel Gibson’s “crowd” before Pilate? If you were his expert consultant, how would you have advised him, and why? It is ultimately, of course, a question of how to read the inspired differences between the four gospels. Here is my own answer with a very deliberate focus on Mark as the earliest gospel and the major source for Matthew and Luke (almost certainly) and for John (at least possibly).

"My question is how, as a conscientious Christian, knowing what has happened across two millennia, one should tell or film 'The Passion of the Christ' so as to cauterize the potential venom of anti-Semitism?" --John Dominic Crossan

First, it is public knowledge that "The Passion of the Christ" focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life. It excludes, therefore, the entire life of Jesus in general and preceding 5 days in particular. But, from their enthusiasm at his entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11:8, the Jewish “crowd” is always on Jesus’ side in explicit contrast to opposition from the upper echelon Jewish authorities. Examples: “the chief priests and the scribes … kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching” (11:18); “they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd” (12:12); “and the large crowd was listening to him with delight” (12:37). This theme climaxes, of course, with the need for Judas: “The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him; for they said, ‘Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people’” (14:1-2). All of that is quite clear: the “crowd” supports Jesus, the top authorities oppose him. That agrees in general with the first-century historian Josephus’ assertion that, “Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us ...condemned him to be crucified.” Nothing there, by the way, about any participating “crowd.”

Second, the narrative logic is equally clear in the sequence of the story in Mark 15. There is a customary and open Passover amnesty (15:6). There is a violent freedom-fighter named Barabbas in prison--in other words, if I may say so, the equivalent in Judea of "Braveheart" in Scotland or "The Patriot" in America (15:7). The “crowd” comes up to get Barabbas released (15:8). Pilate considers Barabbas a violent threat and had rounded up his companions. Jesus was only a non-violent resister so no companions were arrested. Therefore, quite sensibly, he offers to release Jesus instead of Barabbas (15:9). Then, and only then, does that “crowd” turn against Jesus as he now threatens the freeing of their hero Barabbas. In other words, they come to Pilate for Barabbas and not against Jesus. Once again, that is quite clear in Mark.

Third, how many people, Ben, do you imagine in that “crowd” before Pilate in Mark 15:8,11,15? “Crowd” is absolutely relative to situation (“two’s company, three’s a crowd”). In the Oval Office, 15 is a crowd, at the Super Bowl, 75,000 is a crowd. One point: Passover was tinder-box time in Jerusalem with zero toleration for disturbances. Another point: Pilate was cited by Josephus and finally fired by Rome for his violent methods with even unarmed crowds. In that context, with that governor, I imagine a “crowd” of somewhere between, say, half a dozen and a dozen people. Therefore, even when Matthew speaks of “the whole people” or John speaks of “the Jews, ” it can only mean: all the Jewish people in that (for me, very small) “crowd.”

Even streets filled with shouting crowds could never justify anti-Semitism any more than Roman crucifixion could justify anti-Italianism. Still, I want to press my question: how do you understand, Ben, the purpose and size of that “crowd” before Pilate and how do you come to your conclusions?

With best wishes,
Dom