Is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" really anti-Semitic? [One FReeper's analysis]

Over the past week or so there seems to have been a huge groundswell of complaints or accusations that Mel Gibson's blockbuster movie "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic. With this in mind I went and saw the movie again this weekend, notebook in hand, just a week after seeing it for the first time. From my notes:

In the movie Judas appears (to me) hesitant and uncertain in accepting the money from an arrogrant and distant Caiaphas. Luke's Gospel, the one that discusses this, portrays the situation differently, almost a cheerful discussion. If this film were intended to be anti-Semitic (ITFWITBAS...), it might have done better to stick to the Gospels as written.

The actual act of betrayal in the movie is nowhere as bold as I'd been taught, or as I read in the Gospels, or as is shown in other movies. In this movie Judas is not forward about the betrayal -- he almost tries to run away before the act of betrayal. (ITFWITBAS...)

The soldier whose ear was cut off -- Luke records that Jesus touched and healed his ear. The Gospels don't record the movie guard's apparent aversion to any further participation in the proceedings. (ITFWITBAS...)

The (Jewish) temple guards were cruel to Jesus, according to Luke. Though the cruel treatment was different than portrayed in this movie, he was mocked and beaten. Why the difference? I don't know.

My notes indicate an observation that in the movie the temple guards were cruel towards the Jews as well. They did not seem to regard themselves as being of the same people (as often happens with ruling elites). ITFWITBAS, this distancing between the guards and the Jewish people runs counter to the intent.

The movie deviates from the Gospels here. Matthew records that the court met early in the morning, Luke that it was at daybreak. Apparently a trial could not legally begin until after daybreak. Yet Gibson starts it at night, and one of those protesting the assembly remarks that it is illegal. The result is that more blame is placed on Caiaphas and/or Annas (Mark and John) than on the Jews, two of whom (in the movie) protest the proceedings. ITFWITBAS, it might have done better to stick to the Gospels as written.

One does note in passing that in the movie the assemblage in the court were against Jesus. This is in accord with Mark and Luke.

Once again, Judas is portrayed as a man who has made a grave mistake. Per Matthew he tries to return the money but is rebuffed by the arrogant Caiaphas. The Gospels say no more, but in the movie he is beset by "little satans," demons who drive him to despair, hanging himself outside Jerusalem. (And don't miss the association of the devil with the Lord of Flies in that scene!) ITFWITBAS, it might have done better to keep it simple instead of destroying the anti-Semitic portrayal of Judas as exemplar of the perfidious Jew.

We have skipped over much here, but in this scene the crowd of Jews appears to be noisily agitating for Jesus' execution (but what they are saying in Aramaic does not appear in the subtitles). Luke is the only one to differentiate, or even mention, the two appearances before Pilate with the appearance before Herod intervening. This basically follows Luke, though with much embellishment.

All four Gospels come to accord, more or less, here. The crowd (incited, per Matthew) demanded crucifixion and Barabbas' release instead. In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands, and the Jews say "Let his blood be on us and our children." However, I identified this statement in the movie and it did NOT appear in the subtitles. I think it was in Aramaic (not spoken today over 99.999999% of the human population) and not Latin (not understood today by over 99%? of the human population) so ITFWITBAS, the producer of this movie missed a huge and obvious' opportunity to promote anti-Semitism.

During Jesus' scourging, there are scenes of those who appear to be Jews, not celebrating but instead sympathetic with his plight. That's my own interpretation on what I saw -- perhaps there are other interpretations.

I didn't have a stopwatch, but I did note that much time during the scourging, particularly when it became too much to watch, was spent on flashbacks or diverted to other scenes, and particularly to Mary. The movie was not directly as violent as it initially appeared, though you weren't allowed to forget what was occurring. If this movie played as much to sadists as some reviewers implied, I doubt the diversions would have occurred; we would have been treated to every single rod and lash. Mercifully, for us, unlike Jesus we weren't.

The first time I saw the movie I barely even noticed the accusatory Jews. But the second time, seeking out any aspect of anti-Semitism, I did see them. But I did so only by looking past the cameras' focus, their angles on the scenes. The accusing Jews are there, but you have to look for them because the cameras are not focusing on them. ITFWITBAS,the producer missed some great opportunities.

Others have remarked, "All the good people [in this movie] were Jews." I am not certain that is precisely the case, but it comes close enough. Veronica and her veil --"Permit me, my Lord" as she wipes his bloodied face-- and tries to give him a cup of water (in the movie) appears both to be Jewish and supportive of Jesus, for no discernable reason. Later, as He moves on she cries. ITFWITBAS, these scenes should never have been presented.

Simon, now, develops in the movie. Initially angry at being drafted (Mark), "This is none of my business," he says, he is told by another Jew, "Help Him, He is a holy man." And so later Simon cries, "Stop this!" and "Leave Him alone!" to the cruelly sadistic Roman guards. And there is another scene where a Jewish woman cries, "Someone stop this!" at the guards' brutality. ITFWITBAS, these scenes would never have been presented.

Simon lovingly supports and encourages Jesus along the way: "We're nearly there," and "It's almost done." And when they reach the place of execution the guards have to push Simon away from Jesus, and Simon departs in tears. ITFWITBAS, these scenes would never have been presented.

I don't pretend that this is a complete or scholarly analysis of the purported anti-Semitic elements of this movie. But I will assert that if this were intended to be an anti-Semitic movie, the maker has missed SO many opportunities that one simply could not imagine a producer or director on the order of a Mel Gibson missing them. Another interpretation is in order, and that is that those who are making these accusations have agendas of their own -- they don't want the public to see this movie.

A New Explanation of Antisemitism

Inspired by Mel Gibson's the Passion.

People are seeing The Passion in droves. There is a hue and cry in the land over this movie and the word 'antisemitism'. What's going on?

An effort to generate fear in viewers or potential viewers of The Passion, that's what's going on. To counter this effort, the following will provide a new explanation of 'antisemitism'. This article is also meant to eliminate once and for all the fear common people feel when they sense this weaponized word is directed against them.

Both of these objectives will be accomplished without implicitly or explicitly denigrating anything associated with Jews, Jewish Culture, Judaism, or Israel. But if you are a Gramscian leftist, or a communist, chances are very good you will find the following offensive.

So, is Mel Gibson's The Passion antisemitic? Well, from the common usage of the word anti-semitism, FReeper Eala provided as good as a rebuttal I've yet seen here at FreeRepublic. And I agree with what most have said. The movie is not antisemitic, technically speaking.

But after seeing it, I'm surprised how much the critics and shouters of 'antisemitic!' held back. In spirit, it's the most antisemitic movie ever made. But hold on! Let me explain.

Common Usage of 'Antisemitism'

Have you ever considered why the common usage of antisemitism is 'common'? Here's the reason. It's definition is owned by leftists. Who decided it would be this loaded nuclear word that so many fear? Leftists. Bear with me please ...

Antisemitism was invented by a German named William Marr, and printed for the first time in 1880. "Semitism" was printed for the first, and nearly last, time in 1885. Odd, yes?

Semitism is a word with virtually no commonly understood meaning in our language and is virtually never used. But, other than that, do we need to do the endless etymological game of defining this word? Not really. (But, go here if you must. It's not the final answer to this Gordian Knot, but it's a start).

Most of us 'common' people know what antisemitism means. In common usage an antisemite hates Jews, and/or Jewish Culture, and/or Israel, and/or Judaism. And the word doesn't need to explain the source or origin of that hatred. The word suffices for its intent, just like the word 'murderer'. If you are an antisemite, you are guilty of being an agent of hate.

It is an extremely feared label, and possibly there is no other word more scary to the average educated listener. This alone explains one thing - The Passion must be very threatening to leftists who hurl the label antisemitic.

However, we common people are not intended to understand that, but rather we're meant to just simply accept it. Our very desire and/or choice to see this movie basically makes us, in the eyes of leftists, antisemitic. Why would so many want to plant this idea in a viewer's mind? The answer is to either prevent someone from going to see it in the first place, or making someone feel guilty for paying for a ticket to see it.

Why? To prevent the viewer from experiencing what I experienced watching this movie. My understanding of antisemitism changed dramatically. And this new understanding made me see that The Passion is indeed 'antisemitic' after all. And much more so than has been generally discussed in print so far.

'Antisemitism' is just about the most potent shock word today, designed for one purpose only - to divert attention away from one thing, and directly toward another. And the leftists are the ones who most cherish the exclusive use of this nuclear-tipped word. And most pundits and authority figures of any stripe will not stand and challenge the meaning of this word. But why?

Ostensibly, it's because many Jew-hating people exist and need to be identified; and it's a truth they do exist. But antisemite is used as a far more potent weapon against enormous numbers of people who are not Jew-haters, as many FReepers will attest.

So, because I did break the rules, and buy a ticket to watch The Passion, and because of its effect on me, I'll explain why this fear of this word exists, and provide the method of breaking its' cobra-like power to freeze a listener. How? I will break the 'rules' and provide new definitions of two words, definitions which were inspired by viewing The Passion.

Philosemitism is loving rules and just as much, rejecting the reality of any possible act of 'living by the truth'. If you believe truth must be relative at all times to something else, you're a philosemite.

Antisemitism is to be guilty of loving the truth. Jesus was not cool, for he made a particular claim about the nature of truth - He was it. As such, He was the ultimate essence of antisemitism (his authentic Jewishness notwithstanding). If you buy into the idea of absolute truth you're an antisemite, regardless of your faith or denomination.

So, let's elaborate about these new explanations of philosemitism and antisemitism. The following uses both words only in these new contexts.

Rule of Cool

To philosemites, the lovers of rules, antisemites must be pointed out, fingered. Sort of like that screeching sound Donald Sutherland makes in the final scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. He's pointing to the last human, who failed to conceal she had not yet been taken over during her sleep.

To live in America today, and be accepted in just about any peer group or organization of any kind that has mainstream acceptibility, means you must intensely desire to be cool, learn and know how to remain 'cool' and comprehend the importance of that objective.

In short, the Rule of Cool is where you respect, learn, and keep the rules. It's a faith system in which you live within man made rules that you believe in. One of the primary rules is you must seek to be accepted by the 'in crowd'. And that above all, after you are accepted in the 'in crowd', you accept the role as enforcer of the rules.

Thus, you must buy and own a stake in keeping the rules and passing them along to the next generation. Hollywood is the arbiter of cool today, culturally speaking. But, it's merely an echo of the larger society.

America is today a profoundly legalistic society and we all know this is a recent development in our history. Everyone who has ever gone to different doctors for the same ailment understands how the legal system circumscribes all modern treatment protocols. Doctors realize conditions are to be treated only in certain ways. Why? Lawyers and lawsuits. Doctors know who own the rules. Now, this may sound extreme. But, in the end, the 'rules' rule, and the rulers are mostly lawyers, especially leftist lawyers, our modern Pharisees.

But whether they're leftist Hollywood movie producers, or leftist Army generals, or leftist corporate big wigs, or leftist Episcopalian Bishops, or leftist U.N. bureaucrats - they're all Gramscian rulers who love rules, love learning them, knowing them, enforcing them, and passing them on to the young.

If you don't buy into rules, in short, you're an antisemite and you will risk a future penalty of some kind. At minimum, you're slated to be on the outside looking in from birth, and destined to be afraid of labels like 'antisemtic'. You're excluded. On the other hand, philosemitism is distinctly associated with many rewards. No need to elaborate on those.

So, back to the Passion and Christ. In this new and fuller explanation of antisemitism, what an antisemite Jesus turned out to be! No wonder the Jewish Pharisees in command hated him so. Jesus was a blasphemer. The Jewish rulers believed he was the ultimate Judas against what they said the Law said God wanted.

No wonder the Romans found him to be a pain in the neck. Jesus was a radical. To both, he rejected their rules, and said so out loud. And his worst crime? Getting folks to turn away from the Pharisees and Romans and turn and listen to him. That's what really slated him for the public flogging and his journey down Dolores Road.

Thus, The Passion is not anti-Jewish or anti-Roman. But it is so totally antisemitic, so completely anti-law, that it's an utter tidal wave of truth crashing out of the screen onto the viewers. It's a wonder the restraint in the reviews of the mainstream press ... dare I say a miracle?

What does Christ say to Pilate? "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me". Pilate's reply, indeed his final words to Christ, reflect his life's walk, the life of so many philosemites: 'What is truth'?

Pilate then walks off, and walks the tight rope of his world a bit more, and then delivers Jesus to the world's crucifiers. He is 'cool' in his power, his authority. Pilate knew the rules and was in bondage to them.

Pilate loved the rules of politics more than the Pharisees loved the rules of religion, and was rewarded with commensurately more power. As a result, Pilate had even more power than his subjects, and they both knew it. That is why the charge against Jesus that He taught His followers that they "don't have to pay tribute" to Rome was so necessary. It was at that point at which Pilate decided to begin formally ruling on Christ's fate.

Thus, Pilate is the archetype philosemite. He authorizes the crucifixition of Christ not because the Jews say it's the truthful thing to do, but because for the Roman governor of upset Jewish subjects, it's the only 'cool' thing to do, leaving Pilate no choice in the matter. For this one decision, crucifying Christ, Pilate was the cool one as far as the Pharisees he ruled, and the Emperor who ruled him, were both concerned. And, of course, the world was happier for his decision. The world hasn't changed much since then.

Truth, as we're all told over and over again, is supposed to be relative. But, we're told that for a reason ... to prime us to be sensitive, fearful, to the charge of being an labeled an antisemite. It's our modern cultural sensitivity training in its most distilled essence.

Bottom line, once that word is invoked, a major head swivel in unison occurs to all within earshot of the charge. A head swivel where ears and eyes are pointed to the accuser and accused, and away from ..... anyone? anyone? The message of Christ. The entire objective of all this hue and cry about The Passion and antisemitism is to dampen the idea, the concept, of absolute truth.

To Mel Gibson, and of course, Christ, I say thanks for showing me this.

And all this does lead to a final, ultimate, irony. Christ had a number one rule, the greatest commandment. "Love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength."

He was quoting the Torah, from Chapter 6 in Deuteronomy. An interesting name for that book - it means 'Repetition of the Law' or 'These are the Words of G-d' in Hebrew. Very interesting. Jesus was into rules too, a Law promoter after all. And to prove he was serious about His rules, and not their rules, he raised people from the dead, even on the Sabbath. Recall that healing on the Sabbath was viewed as 'work' and was considered to be illegal by the Pharisees. Whoa.

In fact, Christ wanted us to be cool even more than the world does, and for all of us to be in the 'in crowd' - to be 'in Christ' even more than in the world! Now that is clever, given 'clever' could ever be used properly to describe Him. He rose from the dead Himself to convince us that breaking the world's rules was not just Ok, but the preferred way of life. Yep, leftists are indeed threatened by this message.Him.

So Christ is, in His way, way cool. And since he did give us a number one rule, a number one greatest commandment, that means he recognized the utility of rules, at the least.

And remember what I said philosemitism was above? Thus the greatest irony of all is Christ instructs all of us to be ..... philosemites! After all, Christ encorporated Himself, indeed, as a Jew.

The hue and cry of antisemitism will never stop, even long after homes across the world own the DVD of The Passion. Although the debate of what Truth is has already ended, much of the world will never agree.

And so the effort to prevent viewing, or contaminate the viewing, of the Passion will never end either. But, at the least, we viewers of this movie can now stop being afraid of the fear-inspiring word 'antisemitism'. The leftists don't own it anymore.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.