Mel Gibson's The Passion: A Jewish perspective

[scottcsmith]

I need to start off with a disclaimer. I would never presume to tell someone what they should or should not believe when it comes to religion. We Jews encounter this on many fronts. In the mid-1990s the Southern Baptist Council launched a campaign to target Jews for conversion. The Jews for Jesus movement within Christianity (also known as being a "Messianic Jew") seeks to convert Jews to Christianity. I don't like it when it happens to me, and I don't want to come across as telling Christians what they should believe about their scripture. I'm just giving my opinion based on my own research of the New Testament.

Needless to say, I'm a bit apprehensive about Mel Gibson's upcoming film, The Passion. I know I shouldn't judge it without first seeing it, but Gibson has made a point that the film will be "biblically accurate," and let's be honest, the blame for the death of Christ in the Gospels is weighed more heavily on Jewish shoulders than Roman shoulders.

There is some controversy brewing about Gibson potentially cutting out a piece of dialog from the film. It's from the book of Matthew, Chapter 27, verses 24-25. In Matthew's version of the Passion, the Roman government basically wants nothing to do with Jesus:
"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man's blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility.' ALL the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'"

In terms of biblical history, the book of Matthew is believed to have been written between the years 66-73 CE, and most scholars believe the book of Mark to be the main source material. Mark is the earliest gospel, and some scholars have put its date to around 40 CE.

Back to the crowd of Matthew. This is the scene Gibson reportedly trimmed to remove the dialog of "Let his blood be on us and our children."

Our good friends at the Free Republic are not at all happy with the removal of that dialog.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1072514/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1071295/posts

Why they would want the words to remain puzzles me. The origins of Christian anti-semitism can be traced directly to Matthew 27:25.

Mark's Passion is very different in tone when compared to Matthew. Mark Chapter 15 covers the appearance of Jesus before Pilate. In Mark's gospel, it is Pilate that makes the decision to crucify Jesus, not the Jews, as told in the book of Matthew.

Mark 15:15
"Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified."

In Mark's version, Pilate does not symbolically wash his hands of Jesus, and it's clear that Pilate has made the decision to execute Jesus with a Roman form of punishment.

I do hope Gibson removes the troublesome dialog from Matthew 27:25. I suspect that in the end he will not. I do intend of seeing this film when it is released. It doesn't take much to fuel the flames of anti-semitism, and I'm really hoping this movie does not spark those flames.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. If Christians truly follow the teachings of their master

Jesus, they would forgive and be tolerant. They would worry more about their own spiritual progress than the spiritual progress of others.

[xchrom]

2. christians are not known

for minding their own business.

[el_gato]

4. or they would be out sacrificing goats and children etc.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. The statement is meant to be ironic.

On the page, it "plays" better. By their own admission, the Jewish mob in Matthew changes Jesus into the Passover Lamb, connecting him to the story of the blood that spared the firstborn in Egypt. The reader can more dispassionately see this irony and apply it to their heart.

But in Passion Plays, a screaming Jewish mob is difficult to ignore, especially if the audience already has a strong vein of anti-Semitism at hand. The dramatization is what turns up the heat of Christian hatred of the "Christ-killers". Knowing the history of the blood libel, Mel was right to finally excise this statement from his Passion, for as the director of the ADL continues to stress, more people will see this Passion than saw all of the medieval Passion Plays combined.

I don't think Matthew 27:25 is the fount of Christian anti-Semitism, but it's certainly a focal point for it, and conflicts between early Christians and the Jewish community inspired the verse to be written. There's no denying the history of the phrase in inspiring pogroms worldwide, and I'm glad to learn that Mel cut it from the final film.

[xchrom]

5. it was easy to manipulate that line

and europeans had jewish folks segregated in ghettos so as a group they remained an easy target for a very long time.
but also look at the history of christian missionary work -- the cruelty and anger that it was often carried out with -- christians took to heart the images of blood and suffering and passed it around quite liberally.

[pretzel4gore]

7. Jesus was Jewish himself

so christian anti semitism doesn't really add up.....much like arab anti semitism (or Northern Irish anti- catholicism/protestantism for that matter)
You'd think adults who have thousands of years of history, logic and wisdom behind them, in their heritages, would see the goofiness of hating for sport.... prolly it was always easier just to let the loudmouth bullies run amok....

[glarius]

6. Whether or not Gibson removes the dialog he is a religious zealot

I saw a snippet of an interview a couple of days ago where he was asked about the anti-semitism factor and he said, "I love Jews, I pray for them."....That to me was a dead giveaway...I have a Christian zealot in my own family...a good person, but she and her fellow believers profess love for all...Jews, Muslims...all non Christians....The catch is that they love these people but believe that unless they convert to Christianity they will go to hell...I have heard her say that so often, with the same look on her face as Gibson when he said it...."I pray for them."

[Pillowbiter]

8. Me, as an Atheist, have been trying to figure out

American Christian morality myself. Jesus loved and preached caring for the poor, yet the evangelist crowd views them as hated things that suck their money from them.

There's also the whole death penalty and war thing too.

PB

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. I don't blame the Jews or anyone else

It was God's plan.

I look forward to seeing the movie, but not for purposes of Jew or Roman Bashing. :) (REALLY want to see how much emphasis was given on Christ's socialist leanings.)

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[blondeatlast]

10. Welcome back,

I think.

[LeahMira]

54. Maybe pacifist, but socialist?

(REALLY want to see how much emphasis was given on Christ's socialist leanings.)

Since the movie is supposed to be about the last day of Jesus' life only, I think you may be disappointed if you're looking for socialist leanings.

[brainwashed_youth]

11. they removed it

I read last nite that Gibson had cut that film. I studied this subject extensively in my World Religions class and if u wanna talk about it and hear why it wasn't the Jews fault, IM me.

[smirkymonkey]

23. Is it something you could sum up in a

few paragraphs?? I am non-religious but I would like to have a good argument ready for the fundy frenzy that this film will most likely unleash.

I never tire of seeing fundys hang themselves with their own words. I would like to learn some verbal ju-jitsu on this topic so that I can stop them in their tracks.

Note: Fundy, imo, does not mean all Christians - just the hate consumed, extremely intolerant, neo-con, rapture ready contingent.

[DrWeird]

12. Given that Southern Baptists...

Are renting theaters to screen it, means that I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole.

I saw the commercials for "Left Behind" and "Megiddo" and that's thirty seconds of my life I'll never get back.


Sigh.

And Kill Bill Volume 2's been delayed until April.

[BoB Bonnet]

13. Big loss there

I wish Kill Bill Volume I was delayed. . . that is almost 2 hours I've lost.

[wuushew]

15. The Omega code is hillarious especially while stoned

Christian films can be unintentionally funny.

[Mari333]

19. LOL no kidding

I saw that too..my husband and I were laughing for days.

[anti-NAFTA]

14. Jesus was a socialist. Mel Gibson is a fascist

His father is a Nazi sympathizer. Mel Gibson is obviously psychology disturbed.

He thinks I'm going to Hell for not accepting a man, Jesus, as my savior? My savior is God. I don't pray to human beings. That;s called idolatry for me. I couldn't believe in Odin-worship, Jesus-worship, Zarathrushrtra-worship if I tried.

I hope Gibson is "humbled" one day by a pair of fists.

[brainwashed_youth]

16. slow down there

Gibson is not a fascist. And leave Mel Gibson's father out of it. Concentrate on Gibson. Just because he doesn't believe the same way as you do is no reason to get all huffy and puffy.

[wuushew]

17. But he is pre-Vatican II

Cannot some information be gardnered from that fact alone?

[brainwashed_youth]

18. true

but that doesn't make him a fascist or brain damaged or anti-semitic or any of that nonsense. All Gibson is doing is making a movie about the last hours of Jesus as it says in the Bible, he's not trying to be anti-semitic

[anti-NAFTA]

25. I wouldn't be so sure.

Mel Gibson is anti Vatican II. I wonder why. Hmmmmm.

He's a piece of trash anti-Semite, repuke scumbag.

You don't know the history of passion plays and how they were used to get Europeans' mind off their monarchist oppressors and divert attention to "der ewige Jude."

If I ever met Gibson I would spit in his face.

[brainwashed_youth]

28. no, he's not

He is only using the Bible(and the Bible alone) for his movie about Christ. If he did it any other way, it would suck and he would draw fire from the right. I wouldn't want to go see a movie about Jesus where he didn't use the Bible as the main source. I'm not trying to be mean but saying stuff like "Gibson is a repuke, anit-semitic scumbag" makes you sounds silly, especially when you haven't seen the movie.

[anti-NAFTA]

29. The Last Temptation of Christ was a fine film.

Don't tell me that you wouldn't be incensed if an Muslim-American made a film telling of how the Jews of Mecca turned against Mohammed.

I don't need to see the movie to know it's shit. The guy rejects the new Vatican because IT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE JEWS AS THE PRIMARY KILLERS OF JESUS. The Christian right loves the film; O'Reilly whores for it; and you're telling me that there's no agenda behind it? Even if it isn't anti-Semitic, it's still an attempt to brainwash the American public.

[brainwashed_youth]

30. i don't think so

Gibson is just trying to make a movie about the passion of christ based on the Bible. What's so wrong with that? Honestly, ur overreacting here. See the movie, then you can go spouting off all this "anti-semitic" stuff all you like.


p.s. Last Temptation was marketed as fiction. Passion is being marketed as a true story. The only way you could market it as true is if he used the Bible. Other than that, we really have no information about the historical Jesus.

[anti-NAFTA]

32. You think the Bible is fact? I have news for you.

eom

[brainwashed_youth]

33. all I'm saying

is that if Mel Gibson is going around saying he's making a nonfiction story about the life of Jesus, he should use the Bible. Other than that, what are ya gonna use. I agree, this is a very sensitive topic for alot of people, but I think that you and me and everybody else should see the movie b4 we come to conclusions.

[anti-NAFTA]

35. you can use your mind. how about that?

instead of taking dogmatic speculation as if it were the truth. Who wrote the Gospel? hmmmmm...

[brainwashed_youth]

37. I can use my mind?

Why don't you use yours and see the movie before you jump to all these conclusions about it. How's that for using ur mind?

[anti-NAFTA]

42. So which conclusion of mine is inaccurate?

it's made by someone who is anti-Vatican II. It's supposedly pinning the blame on the Jews, like the New Testament does.

I WILL see the movie though, rest assured of that.

[brainwashed_youth]

45. good choice

I'm glad ur gonna see the movie. But honestly, do you really think Mel Gibson made this movie just to revive rabid anti-semitism? I don't think so.

[anti-NAFTA]

46. he made the movie because he's disturbed.

he feels PASSIONate about reviving the passion play. he's doing it because he thinks G-d wants him to do it.

[brainwashed_youth]

48. so...

anybody who makes a movie about Jesus using the NT is disturbed? Why are you so upset by this. Was there a big wave of anti-asian attitudes after Pearl Harbor came out? No, there wasn't. What makes you think there is gonna be a massive wave of anti-semitism after Passion comes out?

[anti-NAFTA]

49. I don't think it'll be a "big wave"

it's not like we'll have lynchings. It's that people will feel more anti-semitic.

Pearl Harbor was not a movie about the religion of 80+% of Americans

[ikojo]

51. There may not have been a wave of anti Asian

feelings surrounding the release of Pearl Harbor but there were concerns about those feelings being resurrected, so to say. Pearl Harbor tanked at the box office (when compared to what it cost to make the movie and what it brought in).

Jews feel passionate about Passion plays because for CENTURIES these plays were put on during Holy Week to inflame anti semitic tendancies within the Christian community. People were encouraged by their religious and political leaders to make those responsible for the death of Jesus pay and pay Jews did.

THOUSANDS of years of Jewish history is difficult to ignore and forget. Jews haven't exactly been shown much Christian love you know.

[anti-NAFTA]

52. Thank you.

People need to read up on what the hell passion plays were and what they were used for. They were the religious version of "Die Juden in Berlin." Gibson apparently thought they were great.

[anti-NAFTA]

55. kick

[thebigidea]

38. Like, because life is precious and God And the Bible

12 point reference!

[brainwashed_youth]

40. it's just a damn movie

I really don't see what the big problem is. Why are ya'll so upset by this?

[anti-NAFTA]

43. Mein Kampf was just a book.

The Turner Diaries was just a book

Jude Suss was just a movie

need i go on?

[brainwashed_youth]

44. a little 2 much

I see ur point about Mein Kampf, but comparing it to this movie is a little much. Do you really think this movie is going to inspire the rabid anti-semitism that you think it will. Is that what your so upset about? Relax, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.

[anti-NAFTA]

47. i don't care if it's rabid or if it's one little shit

I know that quite a few people will think, "hey, maybe those little Jews really aren't so nice after all?"

[Tinoire]

27. No because the differences between pre/post-Vatican Catholics

are mostly liturgical in nature- which mass to say (they prefer the old Tridentine rite), which language to use, to kneel when receiving communion or not, to allow lay non-consecrated hands to give communion, to allow lay-people to participate in certain parts of the mass, where to place the Blessed Sacrament, women wearing a veil during mass, etc.

The profession of faith hasn't changed & the Holy Family faithful are considered Catholics in good standing. The statements some have made about them being schismatics is rather ridiculous because they are not cut off from Rome or excommunicated.

There is a more traditionalist group, the Society for Pius X aka SSPX that is border-line schismatic but not considered schismatic either- they're classified as having an "irregular" relationship with Rome but still theologically sound enough that any 'modern' Catholics can attend their services. Their web-site is here for anyone who cares http://www.sspx.org/ & their main differences with Rome are outlined here: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm


Additionally being pre or post Vatican 2 doesn't change what is written in the Gospels- those never changed.

[LeahMira]

31. How would YOU feel?

Concentrate on Gibson. Just because he doesn't believe the same way as you do is no reason to get all huffy and puffy.

No one is getting huffy and puffy here. Jewish people do not go out and try to convert non-Jews. In fact, Islam and Christianity are the only two among all the world's religions that do that. We do tend to get upset, though, when people who are uninformed outsiders try to tell us what we believe, or what happened in the course of our history as a People.

Over the centuries, there have been many non-Jews who thought they knew all about Jews, and for reasons of their own devising they persecuted Jewish people. Until now, America has been good to the Jewish people. We have gradually been accepted as equals by non-Jews, and we have advanced and prospered in this country. But now comes this film that apparently portrays some Jews as particularly brutish and bloodthirsty.

There is some speculation out there now that Jesus might have been gay. He seemed especially fond of one of his apostles, John. He never seemed to take any particular interest in any individual woman. I wonder how Christians would react to a movie that followed the gospels faithfully, but portrayed Jesus behaving in a particularly fond way with that "apostle that Jesus loved." After all, it is in the gospels that Jesus loved one apostle particularly well. I'd imagine that a lot of Christians wouldn't be bothered by it at all, but I'd also imagine that a lot more Christians would get very "huffy and puffy."

Think about it.

[brainwashed_youth]

34. i understand

But I think the main point of Gibson's movie is not to try and get everybody to hate Jews, but to show the sacrifice and love of Jesus.

[anti-NAFTA]

36. Yeah, and Falwell is also trying to show you that love. eom

[brainwashed_youth]

41. duly noted

it's sad to see that Jesus's name has been dragged through the mud so much by his supporters, but that should not take away from his life in any way

[Mari333]

21. I agree..let the movie come out

but hopefully the critics continue to speak out..
the most dangerous thing for any Jewish person is an extremist christian fundamentalist.
see:
http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htm

[smirkymonkey]

24. I hope Jesus comes down and

does it personally! :)

[Cleita]

20. A questions for archaeologists or historians.

It seems that the methods of punishment and execution in Palestine in Jesus's time were pretty much what they are in the Middle East today, stoning, beheading, and other such practices that today are deemed Muslim.

Crucifixion was practiced by the Romans and other cultures, but not the Palestinians or am I wrong? If I am right then it would seem that the Romans executed him because they considered his teachings to be treasonous to the Roman authority.

If it had been a matter of Jewish law being infringed upon, then wouldn't they have beheaded Jesus, like Herod beheaded John the Baptist?

I think the gospels have been tampered with over the centuries and hopefully somewhere among undiscovered scrolls,like the Dead Sea scrolls, we may get the full text that was written that could clear this matter up.

Of course, as a dogmatic Catholic Mel Gibson and those Opus Dei Catholics he belongs to would not accept any new documents brought up because they believe the bible as it put together in the Council of Nicea is the inspired word of God and anything else is apocrypha.

[Mari333]

22. Mel needs to brush up on his mythology

http://www.lastdaysreporter.com/myth_jesus.html

[Cleita]

26. Oh, for sure.

The whole hero mythology that was popular in Jesus's time was about a god impregnating a virgin and having his superchild, who was both half divine and half human.

[KathCO]

39. But

the reality is that it was the people OF THE Bible who were responsible for Jesus' technical death NOT current jews or romans. I think some christians and others tend to identify too much with those in the bible and project the actions of those in the bible with people alive today. I am a christian and I do not blame anyone for Jesus' death. ACTUALLY, Jesus' death was the point and would have happened regardless of who was there at the time. The point of christianity is that He died for all of us not who did the technical killing. It was god's plan not human's.

[Dr Fate]

50. I'm concerned with censorship....

As I understand it- the movie will be a "Biblically accurate" version of Jesus's life...

Not a historical version, but a Biblical version.

Many people accept the New Testamnet as one of the greatest works of literature. I know I love it, and I'm an atheist.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the HERO of Mel's movie a Jewish guy who preaches in Jewish temples and celebrates passover?

Then again, I have not seen the flick yet either- it looks a bit over-dramatic- but I guess it is the Passion...

I dont think most bible believers of today read into the King James texts as "pro Roman and anti Jewish". The idea is that he was an outcast amongst his own people...

...if it's okay to censor Mel's movie version of classic literature, then what is next?

[Malva Zebrina]

53. It is only a movie

and from the past Mel Gibson movies I have seen, I will not be inclined to watch this one either. HE does tend to overact and over dramatize and hysterically run hither thither and yon, slashing off the heads of his enemies.

It is only a movie and Mel Gibson is only an actor, with human foibles like the rest of us.

There is little in the bible that can be proven to be an actual , factual, historical event. Sorry, but there are few events that have actually been reported in the bible that can be said to be true.

Remember that. It is all pretty much fiction and this is only a movie based on that fiction.