Movie Inspires Christian Soul-Searching, Not Anti-Semitism

bttt

Very nice review by Linda, closely echoing the opinions of both Rush and Drudge.

I wonder if Mel is taking this rough cut on the road to draw fire before the film is released next Spring. If so, he's succeeding. OTOH, it's possible that, as with political candidates, he may be peaking too soon.

Either way, he has undeniably put his heart, soul and money into this effort at a time when few are willing to risk making waves.

Caiphias was actually a Sadducee, not a Pharisee.

Other than this small error, this is an excellent article.

""All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion." It seemed to me that the entire point of the film was to drive home this message."

NOSTRA AETATE, DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
" Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows."

Caiphias was actually a Sadducee, not a Pharisee.

Another reminder to me to always speak in generalities on these threads. :-)

The CE has his bio here. Isn't this comment so typical of liberals today?

"You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient to you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"

The end justifies the means.

The L.A. Slimes says "(Gibson) is not, in fact, a Roman Catholic". I am aware that his father may believe that the seat of Peter is vacant, but does that hold true for Mel? Nonetheless, today's article by Tim Rutten is a slanderous yellow journal hit-piece. Mel must be doing something right. Go Mel!

Another one? Is it posted yet?

Yep--I don't know if it has been posted. But the Slimes go further and imply that Mel and his family are heretics.

RD

They are trying to rewrite the Christian faith. Those "scholars" touted by liberals wrote that anyone who has not kept up with recent research doesn't know the true story about the Passion.

Some thoughts on Mel's film:

Many applaud Mel for telling the historical "truth" against all odds. This raises several questions for me:

If Mel was concerned about accuracy and historical truth, why did he use as his source material documents written by nuns nearly two millenia after the Jesus of Nazareth was killed?

Furthermore, his other source material, the Gospels themselves (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. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more.

The probable cause for these contradictions: the evangelists wrote some forty to seventy years after Jesus's execution.

Now the language of the film (Latin and Aramaic) which is supposed to lend "authenticity" also raises questions:

Aramaic was indeed the daily language of ancient Jews in Galilee and Judea, but Latin would scarcely have figured at all. When the Jewish high priest and the Roman prefect spoke to each other, they would have used Greek, which was the English of antiquity. And Pilate's troops, employees of Rome, were not "Romans." They were Greek-speaking local gentiles on the imperial payroll.

Upon close analysis of what is known about the film, one concludes that the true historical framing of Gibson's script is neither early first-century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the late first-century Mediterranean diaspora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe.

Therefore, all claims that the film goes to great lengths to tell historical "truths" are put in question, and it becomes clear that this is a film not about the true story of a hugely significant historical event, but rather, it is a $25 million representation of the traditionalist Catholic ideology to which Mel Gibson subscribes, with no basis in actual historical fact.

Interesting analysis. Thank you.

Everything you just wrote is from Paula Fredrickson's(sp?) in the New Republic. There are several innaccuracies in her article, and this is the most glaring:

John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely.

John's Gospel does indeed include the trial before the Sanhedrin. The difference is that in John, Jesus first goes to the former High Priest Annas before He is taken to Joseph Caiphas. It is in John's Gospel that the servant of the High Priest slaps Jesus in the face. To say that there is no trial in John shows me that the lady who wrote that hit piece on Mel hasn't picked up the NT in a long time.

As far as the other criticisms, none of the Gospels contradict each other on Jesus' last words. It's always been traditional that He said "Eli Eli...", then His last cry was "It is Accomplished!" before commending His noble spirit to His Father in Heaven. This is complete nitpicking on the authors part; every other film on Jesus has used the last words of Christ in the traditional form, and I've never heard about any scholars objecting then. Attacking Mel on this point is attacking the whole of Christian tradition.

As for the nuns writings, Anne Catherine Emmerich is about to be beatified by the Catholic Church and her writings are fully in line with the mystical writings of other saints and holy people. Great artists from the Middle Ages and the Rennaissance period often used the saints descriptions of Christ and the Blessed Mother in their works(for instance, probably the most famous crucifixion painting, by Matthias Gruenwald, was inspired by the visions of St. Bridget of Sweden). Why shouldn't Mel be allowed this bit of artistic freedom and license?

Certainly the same people who are now attacking Gibson for making this film didn't seem to mind when Scorcese used a 1944 novel by an excommunicated Greek Orthodox laymen for inspiration for his film about the death of Christ.

So don't see the film. What is the problem?

The Anti-Defamation League now features on its Web site the banner headline "Mel Gibson's 'The Passion': Why ADL Is Concerned," which links to several articles questioning whether the film is anti-Semitic or might provoke physical attacks on Jews

Oh yeah, just like 9-11 provoked all those vicious pogroms on Muslims.

If Foxman thought for a minute, he would support this film. As you know, Africa is a battleground between Islam and Christianity. The gritty realism of this movie will play well on the continent. The more Christians there are in Africa, the better off Israelis, Jews and everyone else is. Christian Kenya--where Israelis like to vacation--is fairly safe while the neighboring Muslim Sudan is not. Nigeria is divided 50% Muslim, 40% Christian and 10% native religion. But Islam isn't growing in Nigeria, Christianity is. There are nearly 400 million Christians in Africa (up from 1 million 100 years ago). Foxman should expand his horizon past the political agenda of opposing conservative Christians because they, mostly, do not vote Democrat. Jews are much safer in areas where Christianity is strong. Mel's film has the potential of increasing the number of those areas.

Thanks for your response, however you only addressed one of the several issues raised in my posting.

As for Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a mystic in the late 1700s and early 1800s who saw visions of Jews with “hooked noses,” according to a 1976 biography of Emmerich by the Rev. C. E. Schmoeger, Emmerich described one vision of an “old Jewess Meyr” who admitted “that Jews in our country and elsewhere strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of suspicious and diabolical practices.”

Does this sound like a reliable source for a historical document?

Try this source:

Bible, King James. John, from The holy Bible, King James version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library
John 18

1: When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
2: And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3: Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4: Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5: They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
6: As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
7: Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8: Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
9: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
10: Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
12: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
13: And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.
14: Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
15: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16: But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17: Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.
18: And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
19: The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20: Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
21: Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
22: And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
23: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
24: Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.
25: And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
26: One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
27: Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
28: Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29: Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30: They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
32: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
33: Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34: Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35: Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37: Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38: Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39: But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40: Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

John 19

1: Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
2: And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3: And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
4: Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5: Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
6: When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
7: The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8: When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
9: And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10: Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13: When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14: And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15: But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16: Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17: And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18: Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
19: And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20: This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21: Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22: Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
23: Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24: They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27: Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
28: After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29: Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
31: The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
32: Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33: But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35: And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36: For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37: And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
38: And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39: And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40: Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
41: Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42: There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Does this sound like a reliable source for a historical document?

Since Mel is only using Emmerich's descriptions of the actual Passion, I don't see how it's a problem, since she doesn't contradict the Gospel narratives in any way, and her book is a moving piece of literature, whether she actually had visions or not.

And as someone who has read some of Emmerich, she also described some of the Apostles as having "hooked noses". She wasn't trying to be anti-semitic, the girl was too naive to even understand things like that. She was describing how people looked according to her visions. Whether they were real, or perhaps influenced by some people around her, is another matter. But she was certainly a person who wanted to please God above all things, hence her sanctity.