Posted on 02/26/2004 8:32:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
There is a remote possibility you may hear something about The Passion of the Christ over the next few days. Yours truly would like to add a small point about scripture and a large point about theology.
The small point is that Mel Gibson's movie depicts Jesus as horrifically brutalized before his crucifixion, and though it is possible events happened this way, according to scripture it is far from certain. All four Gospels report that Pilate ordered Jesus "flogged" or "scourged" before sending him to the cross. But that's all the Gospels say: There is no description in any of the four books regarding how bad the flogging might have been. Gibson's assumption that the flogging was sustained and horrific could be right, but then, a lot of guesses could be right; Gibson is presenting a guess. Mark and John say that Roman police hit Jesus with their hands and with "a reed;" Matthew and Luke say that Roman officers blindfolded Jesus, hit him, and then mocked him by taunting, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" That's it for the Gospel accounts of the torturing of Jesus. Moviegoers will be given the impression that in seeing Jesus horrifically beaten, they are finally beholding the awful, historical truth. They're not--they are beholding a moviemaker's guess.
The Gospels emphasize Christ's suffering on the cross; Gibson has decided to emphasize Christ's suffering via the whip. Strange that Gibson should feel he understands Jesus' final hours better than the Gospel writers did. Maybe this is simply his artistic interpretation--but remember, Gibson is presenting his movie as the long-suppressed truth, not as an artistic interpretation that may or may not be right.
Beneath all the God-talk by Gibson is a commercial enterprise. Gibson's film career has been anchored in glorification of violence (the Mad Max movies) and in preposterous overstatement of the actual occurrence of violence (the Lethal Weapon movies). Gibson knows the sad Hollywood lesson--for which audiences are ultimately to blame--that glorifying or exaggerating violence is a path to ticket sales. So Gibson decides to make a movie about Jesus, and what one thing differentiates his movie from the many previous films of the same story? Exaggerated glorification of violence.
Numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story--including the 1979 movie simply called Jesus, which, as recently reported by Easterblogg's colleague Franklin Foer, numbers among the most-watched films of all time owing to its showing in churches--downplay the flogging of Jesus and focus instead on his suffering on the cross. That is to say, numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story take the same approach as taken by the four Gospel writers. Gibson instead decided to emphasize and glorify the story's violence. Hollywood has indoctrinated audiences to expect to see violence glorified and exaggerated: Gibson now gives audiences a Jesus story in which the violence, not the spiritual message, is the centerpiece. This is a deeply cynical exercise, and one that results in money in Gibson's pocket.
Now the large point about theology. Much of the discussion over The Passion of the Christ focuses on whether it is fair to present the Jewish people or Jewish leaders of the time as the agent of Christ's death. This debate is hardly new, of course; the great philosopher and Catholic monk Peter Abelard was excommunicated partly for asserting, in 1136, that it was wrong to blame Jews for the death of Christ. For a skillful and detailed treatment of this question in history, see Jon Meacham's article from Newsweek.
The point about theology is so simple and basic that it is in danger of being lost in The Passion of the Christ debate--and surely is lost in the movie itself. The point is that according to Christian belief, all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection. Jesus' ministry and story had to happen somewhere. That it happened among Jews and Romans is no more significant than if it had happened among Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns or any other groups. All people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection.
The Gospel of Matthew reports at 20:17-19:
As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." Whether you believe these events actually happened--I do--does not matter to understanding the theological meaning of Jesus's fate, that all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed by his resurrection. The Gospels and the letters of the apostles support this conclusion; the majority of Christian commentary supports this conclusion; that all people were to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed has even been the formal position of the Catholic Church since the Council of Trent almost 500 years ago. The Passion of the Christ seems to urge its audience to turn away from the universal spiritual message of Jesus and toward base political anger; that is quite an accomplishment, and a deeply cynical one.
Excuse me, but criticizing your holy book is hardly the same thing as "seething in your own hate".
I haven't an anti-semitic bone in my body.
Good for you. That is probably what the vicars of the spanish inquistion said to their victims--and I expect they meant it just as wholeheartedly. It's what the Popes always said just before they passed yet another vicious encyclical scourging yet more upon the jews, in yet more inventive ways. Christians say jews are not saved, and where secularly christian countries existed, up until quite recently, they responded to this by blighting the lives of jews. You can have all the good will in the world, but if you refuse to face the consequences of your convictions, it hardly matters.
I observe the only bile spewing here emanates for you.
Than you are not very observant.
A resident FR conspirazoid, you know, Bush is evil, Saddam and Sons were innocent, the CIA is conspiring with OBL, contempt for worship.
A Simple Contrarian.
If you can't cope with the argument, try to dismiss the arguer. I have no contempt for worship, I have contempt for willful ignorance where the resulting damage to others is palpable and widespread.
Well, now you seem to be retreating into incoherence. Or perhaps I should take from this that you harbor widespread contempt for most of your fellow christians? How is it that, having asked me to leave you alone, you feel free to continue to prod at me? A little twinge of conscience accidently breaking out?
Well, now you seem to be retreating into incoherence. Or perhaps I should take from this that you harbor widespread contempt for most of your fellow christians? How is it that, having asked me to leave you alone, you feel free to continue to prod at me? A little twinge of conscience accidently breaking out?
I hardly put a period there. The entire story, in its many recountings, is variously about the sanhedren, the pharasees, or the jews in general betraying jesus to the romans. This is hardly a subtext, it is part and parcel of the agony of christ that he was betrayed by his own people to the romans. I am not "drawing conclusions", I am reading the text as if it means what it says, and quite plainly and repeatedly and celebratedly so, I might add, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. When you add this to the unambiguous, and centrally important claims about who is saved: those who acknowledge christ as saviour, and recognize who, specifically, is therefore not saved--orthodox jews, you have all the recipe you need for centuries of biblically inspired jew-murder. As, in fact, we plainly observe when we look back through europe's shabby history of intolerance and repression, periodically giving way to pulpit-orchistrated local genocides.
I am not anti-catholic, I am anti-creationist. As is the catholic church. Apparently, being unable to muster an argument, you have degenerated to ad homonem attacks. Quite the high road you Gospel defenders have chosen, eh?
Another profound refutation. Let me give you a clue. There is a substantial difference between an argument, and a drama. A drama wants to be experienced, an argument wants to be answered. However, unjustifiably granting your point, let me just point out that there is just naturally something a little dramatic about inciting the murder of whole communities of jews.
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.