'Passion' Needs Postscript

ADL ^ | Feb 3rd 2004 | By Abraham H. Foxman and Rabbi Granatoor

[missyme]

In a recent interview for a Christian television network about his film "The Passion of the Christ," director Mel Gibson, complaining about his critics, repeated the following phrase four times: "He is an anti-Semite" - suggesting this was the accusation repeatedly being made against him.

We have never accused Gibson of being an anti-Semite. But judging from the E-mails and letters we have received since we spoke out after seeing the film last month - some blatantly anti-Semitic, many more suggesting our criticism was somehow dishonest - there is a need to clear the air.

First, let us repeat that we do not believe that Gibson intended his film to be a passion of hate. Our concerns stem from history. For nearly 2,000 years, Jews have been the victims of persecution and pogroms fueled by the age-old canard that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus for all time.

The charge of "deicide" or of Jews as being "Christ killers" has persisted through the presentation of Passion plays despite the Catholic Church's historic Vatican II pronouncement in the early 1960s. It denounced anti-Semitism and stated clearly that the Jews of the past, as well as the Jews of today, bear no responsibility for Jesus' death.

Gibson's film rejects the modern church reforms. We were saddened and pained to find that "The Passion of the Christ" unambiguously portrays Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.

We are shocked that Gibson has not fulfilled his promise to remove the most troublesome aspects of this film. We are especially concerned with a scene in which a mob of Jews who are present when Pontius Pilate condemns Jesus to death calls down a blood curse (Matthew 27:25). This scene so far remains intact, even though Gibson indicated that he was removing it.

Even if that particular scene were removed, there would still be ample material in the film to reinforce the image of Jewish responsibility.

We are troubled that Gibson continues to spurn our requests for an audience and that he feels the criticism of his film is part of a campaign to label him an anti-Semite. Gibson's only response to our numerous requests for a meeting was a brief letter, sent last week, in which he failed to address any of the concerns we have raised.

Our concern is that the images could be used by those who are disposed toward hatred to harden their hearts.

Jewish and Christian leaders have not given up hope. We have urged Gibson to consider adding to the movie a postscript with him coming on screen at the end to implore his viewers not to let the film turn some toward a passion of hate.

[missyme]

SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU VIEWED THE FILM?????

[Barnacle]

I hope Mel won't cave in to the whiners.

[missyme]

May I ask you this? Who was responsible for Jesus's arrest?
who wanted to see him executed? who beleived Jesus was leading Israel astray? practicing sorcery? who was in the crowd when Pontuis Pilate said "Should I let Jesus go? or Barabbas? Who took Jesus off the cross and to the tomb? who visioned the Resurrection? who spent 40 days with Jesus before he descended into Heaven? Do you know the answers to these questions?

LAST: Jesus Christ is alive and well and seated at the right hand of the Father...

[Unam Sanctam]

The Church never said that no Jews of Jesus' time were responsible for Jesus' death. The correct language from "Nostra Aetate" is as follows:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Foxman disclaims that he is calling Gibson anti-Semitic, but he is saying that the mere presentation of the Gospel story, in which certain individual Jews of the time of Jesus lobbied to condemn him to death, incites anti-Semitism and that it is contrary to Catholic teaching of Nostra Aetate. That is simply false. It is important that people do not hold Jews collectively responsible for Jesus' death, except in the general sense that Jesus died for the sins of all of sinful humanity. However, that is a separate issue from the Gospel story. If you are arguing that the Jewish establishment did not lobby to put Jesus to death, I submit that all historical evidence is to the contrary. Foxman shoots way wide of the mark by trying to say that mere presentation of historical fact and the Gospel story itself incites anti-Semitism.

[Dataman]

Seriously: what would you lose if you just dealt with the facts?

Similarly, what would the ADL/Foxman lose if they just dealt with the facts?

There's something spooky going on here. Foxman and friends go into a screaming, flailing, flaming tailspin if anyone questions the official liberal version of the holocaust but the hypocrites have absolutely no problem denying historical fact when it comes to Jesus Christ. Hypocritical hypocrites.

[Viva Christo Rey]

I thought they meant the film needed to include the Resurrection.

I have read that the last scene shows the empty tomb after Our Lord's Resurrection. I don't know specifically how Mel handles this.

[BibChr]

I had not thought of it that way. Very good point.

Dan

[Unam Sanctam]

Foxman and friends go into a screaming, flailing, flaming tailspin if anyone questions the official liberal version of the holocaust but the hypocrites have absolutely no problem denying historical fact when it comes to Jesus Christ.

Oh come on now. The holocaust is an historical fact, as was the condemning and execution of Jesus. Any flirtation with holocaust denial is NOT going to help this film, if that is what you are suggesting.

[af_vet_1981]

May I ask you this?

Who was responsible for Jesus's arrest? who wanted to see him executed? who beleived Jesus was leading Israel astray? practicing sorcery? who was in the crowd when Pontuis Pilate said "Should I let Jesus go? or Barabbas? Who took Jesus off the cross and to the tomb? who visioned the Resurrection? who spent 40 days with Jesus before he descended into Heaven? Do you know the answers to these questions?

I haven't seen the movie.
1. Caiphas (Caiphas was appointed High-Priest of the Jews by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate)
2. Caiphas, Annas (a previous Roman appointed High Priest) and their Sadducee supporters
3. Probably any rabbi who did not think he was the Messiah
4. People who witnessed or heard of his miracles but did not believe they were from G-d (similar to some faith healers I suppose)
5. Perhpas 200-300 Jewish Zealots who were there on behalf of their comrade BarAbbas, some other Jewish collaborators, and some Gentiles. That makes it what, from 0.005 to .01 % of the Jewish people alive at the time depending on the numbers you use.
6. Simeon of Cyrene, father of Rufus and Alexander, a Jew from North Africa in Jerusalem for the Passover
7. Yoseph of Aritmathea, a righteous Jew who happened to make a good living
8. Miriam and Miriam
9. 120 Jews

LAST: Jesus Christ is alive and well and seated at the right hand of the Father...

Is that in the movie ? If not, why not ?

May I ask you this?
1. Who crucified myriads of Jews ?
2. Who tortured Jews ?
3. Who burned Jews to death ?
4. Who burned them in their synagogues ?
5. Who raped their wives, mothers, and daughters ?
6. Who skinned them alive ?
7. Who expelled them from their lands and took their possessions ?
8. Who stole their children from them ?
9. Who tried to kill every living Jew to the third generation ?

Do you know the answers to these questions?

[af_vet_1981]

the official liberal version of the holocaust

Could you tell the audience what the the official conservative version of the holocaust is ?

According to Dataman will suffice ?

[af_vet_1981]

If you are arguing that the Jewish establishment did not lobby to put Jesus to death, I submit that all historical evidence is to the contrary.

1. How do you define "the Jewish establishment ?"
2. Do you know how many Jews were alive at the time of Yeshua ?
3. Do you know how many lived in the land of Israel ?
4. Do you know how many were in Jerusalem for the Passover ?
5. Do you know what a Roman occupation was like ?
6. Have you read the account of Caesar's Gallic wars ?
7. Do you know how the Romans ruled Judea ?
8. Do you know how many Jews were present at his trial and lobbied to put him to death ?
9. Do you know who gave them power ?

[af_vet_1981]

• Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
• Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
• Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
• But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
• Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

We report

You decide

[Unam Sanctam]

Are you saying the Sanhedrin and the High Priests, Caiaphas and Annas (one of whom had been deposed and installed by the Romans in place of the other), did not represent the Jewish "establishment," at least in Jerusalem?

[missyme]

Some of your answers are not totally correct, but I will try and give you the scriptual accounts for your answers,

In regards to your questions: There is no doubt that the Romans, from the Nazi's to the Palestinians and Radical Islamists are responsible for the death of many many Jews....

But this controversy is not Jews vs Jesus Christ? G-d comes before the Jews he comes before anything or anybody in this life...

No one is discounting the horrible deaths that The Jews have suffered through-out history....But this world is violent it always has been from the beginning of time...

This world will never have PEACE or dignity for others because EVIL exsists. That is why prayer and prostelyzing to others that do not know G-d is so important.

Christians presently in the most hostile countries are dying with extreme torture for there beleif, yet they still keep the FAITH hoping to bring others to Christ...

The Chinese are on a Pilgrimage to Israel and loosing many people on there journey.

TRUE CHRISTIANS are about LOVE and that is what the message of Christ is:
LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU....

Now my question to you:
How do you vision that there might be PEACE in the world, respect and dignity for others without the Love and Forgiveness of Jesus Y'SHUA Messiah?

[rmlew]

Inconsistencies. Name one of the records that says they DIDN'T say that. Thirty-five different accounts of the same even can easily ALL be accurate.
True, but you consider the overlapping areas to be fact, while the accounts not supported by others to be in dispute.

"Any filmed event." Gosh, that you feel driven to say this is sad. Can you name many "filed events" from two millennia ago?
Perhaps an account from another perspective would have been useful. The closest we get here is from Flavius Joseph, who said nothing about "blood guilt".

No basis in law for blood-guilt for that crowd? Have you read the Torah, recently? Can you recall anything in it about bearing false witness, condemning the innocent, and joining hands to do evil? (Hint: I have, and I can — and I'm a Gentile!)
There are sins, but men cannot declare blood guilt. It was done by God on the Amalekites, that is all. Men have no such right.

[Unam Sanctam]

Look, I don't know what your game is, but I have already said that my Church teaches that there is no collective responsibility of the Jewish people, either at the time or later, for the death of Jesus. Therefore, you do not have to worry that I am about to go out and start a pogrom. Therefore, you don't need to try and falsify history to show that no Jews were implicated in Jesus' death. They were, and for quite understandable reasons, he challenged their religious beliefs. So there is no need to get upset about it. It would be a legitimate criticism to say that not enough people are aware of the Nostra Aetate declaration, but it is not necessary to try and falsify history and deny any involvement by individual Jews in the death of Jesus. They are two separate issues, and it is unfair to label someone who adheres to the accuracy of the Gospel story without more as anti-Semitic.

[BibChr]

Your arguments aren't getting better. It isn't you, though; it's the position you're trying to prop up.

...you consider the overlapping areas to be fact, while the accounts not supported by others to be in dispute.

Not at all. One stands here, says the crowd says this. Another stands there, hears that. And on and on — and they all may be right.

They were there. We weren't. I take their word over yours.

Perhaps an account from another perspective would have been useful. The closest we get here is from Flavius Joseph, who said nothing about "blood guilt".

He wasn't there. Matthew was. I go with Matthew.

...men cannot declare blood guilt. It was done by God on the Amalekites, that is all. Men have no such right.

Two different statements. Men can say anything... whether they have a right or not. I agree: they had no right.

But they said it.

Now, still left unanswered from the previous post:

Now the issue is, what do you do with their statement, and with their treatment of Jesus the Messiah? Agree, or disagree?

Dan

[savedbygrace]

Seems Foxman is saying that no matter what changes are made, it still won't be acceptable.

Aren't these the guys who pretended to be pastors so they could get into a preview of the film? Or am I thinking of some other guys?

[Unam Sanctam]

one of whom had been deposed and installed by the Romans in place of the other = one of whom had been deposed and the other installed in his place

[rmlew]

The Jews captured Jesus
Taht is like calling the the Vichy regime, "the French".
The Jews in power served and lived at the whim of the Romans.
Jews when given a choice still called for his death
A crowd of Jews did based on the reality that Jesus had proclaimed himself the Messiah, but failed to live up to the role. "The Jews" as a whole did no such thing. Jews were not unified. (Jesus and his followers were... JEWS).

you cannot acurrately portray the crucifiction of Christ without showing the Jews turning him over to the Romans forcably and calling for his death... you don't have to like it, but THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED!
You can p00ut it in perspective; by pointing out who chose the High Priest and Ethnarch, by noting that Herod had killed most independent members of the Sanhedrin, that Saducees, not Pharasees were the dominent faction, and that over a dozen "Messiahs" were killed by the Romans or Jewish collaborators.

It is clear that the Jews carry a 2000 year old guilt trip over this.... and continue to try to pretend it did not happen. (or at least Some jews anyway).
We feel no guilt. Rather we remember stories of pogroms and riots after Passion plays.