I’ve been fascinated by the critiques of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” According to Rabbi Joseph Rosenbloom, (March 22) the movie is a “horrible skewing (of) the life and mission of Jesus into his last 12 hours of suffering.” In noting the minimal time given to the Resurrection or to ministerial acts like the Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Rosenbloom enjoys the good company of pundits like A.O. Scott, who voiced similar compositional concerns.

Without questioning the good intentions of these closet Coppolas, I suggest that they may be confusing the different meanings of “Passion.” The pull-down dictionary in Word (as in “Microsoft,” not “The”) offers a primary definition of “passion” as “intense or overpowering emotion such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.” Moviegoers embracing this definition would naturally expect to see a film about Christ’s intensity, or maybe about how people came to have such intense feelings about Him or His message.

The same dictionary’s definition of the upper-case “Passion” is entirely different: “the sufferings of Jesus Christ from the Last Supper to his Crucifixion.” It’s this Passion that Catholics, Lutherans, and other Christians observe on Good Friday, and it’s an integral part of our faith. For us, Mel Gibson’s movie is exceptionally painful to watch, but the part of the gospels he covered is hardly surprising — it’s a matter of definition.

In this light, amending the Passion makes about as much sense as taking an account of Passover and tossing in, say, Noah’s Ark.

Mark Hammitt

Burlingame, Calif.

Alumnus