MEL GIBSON'S DEEPLY CYNICAL ACCOMPLISHMENT:(Libel Alert!)

TNR ^ | 26FEB04 | Greg Esterbrook

[.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.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Well, gosh, was that you trying to answer some of my specific and detailed concerns about the Gospels, or was that someone else here who also posts as .cnI redfuM?

Concerns or self-righteous, mean-spirited vituperations?
I've heard a lot of denunciations about religious pogroms that occurred because people in the middle-ages misconstrued what was written in the Gospels and used them to justify pogroms.

To the extent that concerns such as those deserve reply, I would say if it weren't the Gospels it would have been something else. The Jewish, apart from the Moors in Spain, were by far the most capable and wealthy people in Medieval Europe. Wealth and envy will always attract envy and hatred. I doubt The Koran was anything more than an excuse for Bin Ladin and his followers to execute 9-11.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin professed Christianity. That didn't stop them from being far worse toward the Jews than the Medieval Church ever had the organizational ability to manage.

Again, both of these men had a lot of poor, hungry mad people that expected to be fed. There were rich successful Jewish populations in both countries that had no intention of handing over what they had earned to ignorant mobs of deracinated peasants.

Why I even try to give an answer to an irascible jerk such as yourself, I'm not really sure. But for what it's worth, class envy and racism are the real causes of antisemitic pogroms. The religion is just badly misused as a justification.

[winstonchurchill]

Matthew 27:25--goes out of it's way, quite preposterously, to make it out that the elders of the Sanhedren, the pharasees, and the jewish crowds practically forced the reluctant and conscious-ridden Pontius Pilate into crucifying christ. And that if anyone is responsible it is the jewish crowd which said, apparently in unison: "His blood be on us, AND UPON OUR CHILDREN". The passage quoted at every Lent sermon for hundreds of years, to help re-enforce the epithet of christ-killers, and to inspire good christians to go to their local ghettos and enjoy a fine, bracing after-church jewslaughtering.

I think I would lay off the little white pills for a while. They seem to be making you a little edgy.

Matthew 27:25 (written by a Jewish tax collector of course) reports merely that "And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on our children!'"

Now you say,"[Matthew] goes out of [his] way, quite preposterously, to make it out that the elders of the Sanhedren, the pharasees, and the jewish crowds practically forced the reluctant and conscious-ridden Pontius Pilate into crucifying [C]hrist."

A couple of points about the passage and your comment.

1. Matthew's account doesn't 'go out of its way' and is certainly not 'quite preposterous'. He merely reports what was said by the Jews when Pilate attempted to distance himself from the forthcoming execution. Remembering that only Pilate could order the execution, the Jews quite naturally would be afraid that, having said, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves," Pilate might be losing heart for the enterprise. They were in the position of supplicants to Pilate for the use of his power and they clearly did not want the 'opportunity' to slip away. Nothing preposterous about that; just the normal response of people set upon a goal.

2. Nothing in the statement supports the concept that Pilate was 'forced' into the execution. It was clearly His discretionary power to use or not. The Jews were rather clearly trying to persuade him, but they clearly weren't and couldn't 'force' him.

3. What is your evidence that Matthew's account was 'quoted at every Lent sermon for hundreds of years?' I doubt it, but surely if it was, it was in the context of the whole report of Matthew.

4. Certainly, you agree that Matthew himself did not have the goal of "help re-enforce the epithet of christ-killers, and to inspire good christians to go to their local ghettos and enjoy a fine, bracing after-church jewslaughtering." [Matthew and all his friends -- as well as of course His Lord -- were Jews.] The importance of this is that Matthew clearly did not give his report of the occurrences of that day the same impact or intent that you do. Whom should we better believe as to the intent of a passage -- the author or you?

5. As to your assertion that the passage of Matthew's report was read with the specific intent to encourage "jewslaughtering." To say this is a harsh charge is an understatement. I think there is a little too much victimology there. The vast majority of Christians do not differentiate between the unsaved; they have concern for all of them (Jews, Moslems, and just plain ol' American pagans included). Certain dispensationist evangelicals, because of their peculiar interpretation of the Scriptures, are confident that all Jews will be treated specially by God and will eventually come to Jesus as Savior (which would be wonderful if true, but is, in my view, unlikely).

Be that as it may, no Christian I have ever known of or heard of has engaged in "jewslaughtering." You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel. Just read it with an open mind and it will make all the difference.

[donh]

>>>>Well, gosh, was that you trying to answer some of my specific and detailed concerns about the Gospels, or was that someone else here who also posts as .cnI redfuM?

Concerns or self-righteous, mean-spirited vituperations?

Uh huh. And is my "mean-spiritedness" what prompted you to try to defend the gospels in this very post?

I've heard a lot of denunciations about religious pogroms that occurred because people in the middle-ages misconstrued what was written in the Gospels and used them to justify pogroms.

How, exactly, does one "mis-construe" "His blood be upon us, and upon our children". How does one misconstrue the claim that Jesus was delivered to the "priests and scribes" to be betrayed to Pontius Pilate?

To the extent that concerns such as those deserve reply, I would say if it weren't the Gospels it would have been something else.

That is totally absurd. Nothing in history matches the sustained, documented, institutionalized, credo-based fury of the catholic church toward those of jewish faith. Ask the catholic church, if you don't believe me. That's the pontiff's official position on the question. See the "We Remember" documents the Catholic church owned up to and published in 2000. No other ethnic group in europe has sustained anything remotely like this kind of sustained negative attention.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin professed Christianity. That didn't stop them from being far worse toward the Jews than the Medieval Church ever had the organizational ability to manage.

Hitler grew up a choir boy in a catholic church, and briefly aspired to be a priest. He relied heavily on appeals to christian sentiment toward the jews in his public appeals for support for the nazi agenda, and there is no evidence available that suggests that he officially broke with the church, or vice versa, right up to his death. He did want to start a "volkschurch" to replace both the catholic and protestent churches in Germany, but suggestions that this would have been other than a christian church are wishful thinking on the part of those christians who would like to wish him out of the flock. It is nonsense to imagine that Hitler was a dedicated tree-spirit worshipper, just because of a few nasty remarks he made at parties about the church. Many christians have nasty things to say about many churches. That doesn't make them non-christians. Hitler's agenda for Nazi Germany would have been immediately untenable in a country as intensely christian as Germany.

[babble-on]

It is always a problem when any group thinks they have an absolute monopoly on the truth, isn't it? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Socrates or give me Shakespeare.

[donh]

Be that as it may, no Christian I have ever known of or heard of has engaged in "jewslaughtering."

Than you are abysmally ignorant of points covered in every high school textbook. Look up "pogrom" or "First Crusade" when you get a chance.

You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel.

Duh.

[donh]

Be that as it may, no Christian I have ever known of or heard of has engaged in "jewslaughtering."

Than you are abysmally ignorant of points covered in every high school textbook. Look up "pogrom" or "First Crusade" when you get a chance.

You seem to harbor some deep-seated problems with the Gospel.

Duh.

[donh]

I think I would lay off the little white pills for a while. They seem to be making you a little edgy.

At least I am not trying to read Matthew's mind as to his "intent". Nor am I trying to use legalistic hyper-parsing to try to suggest that what is plainly says isn't what it was "intended" to say. He wrote what he wrote, as did John, infused from stem to stern with anti-jewish remarks, and in support of a story that is, by it's celebrated essence, a condemnation of jews for betraying jesus.

As to your assertion that the passage of Matthew's report was read with the specific intent to encourage "jewslaughtering." To say this is a harsh charge is an understatement.

Ask the catholic church loc. cit.--they've owned up to it, unlike their protestent bretheren who are busy trying jam blinders down over their eyes as hard as they can.

[donh]

Neither Hitler nor Stalin professed Christianity. That didn't stop them from being far worse toward the Jews than the Medieval Church ever had the organizational ability to manage.

The Midieval Church didn't have phones, radios, cars, zylon gas, or bullets. Or 6 million jews. Hitler didn't invent the rack and thumbscrew, the Iron Maiden, the stomach press, the tongue extractor, or the bastinado. The church did.

Is this the sort of argument you accept in other situations? If a serial murderer said "but, your honor, there are other serial murderers that do much worse than me", should the judge let him go?

[donh]

1. Matthew's account doesn't 'go out of its way' and is certainly not 'quite preposterous'. He merely reports what was said by the Jews when Pilate attempted to distance himself from the forthcoming execution. Remembering that only Pilate could order the execution, the Jews quite naturally would be afraid that, having said, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves," Pilate might be losing heart for the enterprise. They were in the position of supplicants to Pilate for the use of his power and they clearly did not want the 'opportunity' to slip away. Nothing preposterous about that; just the normal response of people set upon a goal.

So, let me get this straight now. You concur that, according to the Gospels, the "priests and scribes" betrayed jesus to the roman proconsul. You concur that the Jewish mob was screaming for Jesus's head on a platter--as totally unjustified, either in history, or from the context of the story, as this contention is. And you concur that PP was being portrayed as a kindly, sympathetic and reluctant executor, which is, of course, transparent nonsense.

So...how, exactly is it, that you are making a case for yourself that the gospels are not a heavily anti-jewish tract, as most historians think they were intended to be?

[donh]

I said

"Hitler's agenda for Nazi Germany would have been immediately untenable in a country as intensely christian as Germany."

I meant to append to that:

"If Hitler had, in any serious manner, disavowed christianity,"

[winstonchurchill]

So, let me get this straight now. You concur that, according to the Gospels, the "priests and scribes" betrayed jesus to the roman proconsul.

Yup, that's what the printed word says. Did you have another account of the 'festivities'?

You concur that the Jewish mob was screaming for Jesus's head on a platter

Again, those are just the facts. Got another account, do you?

--as totally unjustified, either in history, or from the context of the story, as this contention is.

Perhaps you could share the 'alternative' historical account (which you simply presume). Most intriguing is your "context of the story" comment. What in the 'context of the story' suggests that the Jewish establishment of that day was not seeking Jesus' execution?

And you concur that PP was being portrayed as a kindly, sympathetic

No, the Gospels do not portray Pilate in any sense as 'kindly' or 'sympathetic'. Cowardly and indecisive, surely. Nothing kindly there.

and reluctant executor, which is, of course, transparent nonsense.

Yes, I think he was pretty clearly "reluctant.' At least reluctant to take responsibility for his own actions. Transparent, yes. Nonsense, no. So...how, exactly is it, that you are making a case for yourself that the gospels are not a heavily anti-jewish tract, as most historians think they were intended to be?

[winstonchurchill]

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Socrates or give me Shakespeare.

Boy, that sounds really erudite. I like both Socrates and Shakespeare, but neither offered, to the best of my knowledge, life eternal.

If you are trusting in them to gain Heaven and avoid Hell, I would make sure that your copies of their works are printed on asbestos.

[gitmo]

Gibson's portrayal of the scourging can hardly be described as one man's interpretation. The cat of nine tails is known to have been common in the Roman era. The whip contained sharp metal, bone, and stone that would rip the prisoner's body to pieces.

The opening scene of the movie quotes Isaiah 53. So it is openly revealed that the theology of the movie considers these passages of Isaiah to be Messianic. In that venue, the following quote is applicable:

Isaiah 52:14: So his appearance was marred more than any man,
and His form more than the sons of men.

Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He himself bore, and our sorrows He carried. Yet we considered Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.
But he was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him. And by His scourging we are healed. [NAS]

It appears to be a reasonable and probable portrayal of the torture of Jesus before the crucifiction.

The author of this article portrays the movie as presenting the Jews as the ones who killed Jesus. But that's not accurate. The cruelty of the Romans was prominent in the film. They were thoroughly entertained by the torture of this man.

The point that comes across in Mr. Gibson's film is that I am guilty of the blood of Christ. I drove those nails in him, I tore his scalp open with the crown of thorns, I beat his back to a pulp. The film made it plain that Jesus Himself laid His life down as the sacrifice for my sin. I wept uncontrollably during and after the movie, sobbing out loud: for the horror of what Jesus did, the beauty of what Jesus did, the unspeakable sacrifice He made for a people that was covered in sin.

I wonder if the author has seen the film.

[donh]

Most intriguing is your "context of the story" comment. What in the 'context of the story' suggests that the Jewish establishment of that day was not seeking Jesus' execution?

What, in the "context of the story" suggests to you that the Jewish mob was seeking the execution of a potential new messiah? Something they yearned in all their hearts for?

[donh]

Yes, I think he was pretty clearly "reluctant.'

Which puts you and the Gospels at total, ludicrous odds with history, and common sense.

[donh]

>>>>>>So, let me get this straight now. You concur that, according to the Gospels, the "priests and scribes" betrayed jesus to the roman proconsul.

Yup, that's what the printed word says. Did you have another account of the 'festivities'?

No. Do you have an explanation as to how you think this somehow mean the Gospels lays the blood guilt somewhere other than at jewish feet? You give the impression of arguing with me, but somehow, one find's little actual disagreement here.

[Redleg Duke]

You are a seriously sick individual.

[roses of sharon]

Precisely. Glad you have come around to the present.

[donh]

Precisely. Glad you have come around to the present.

Precisely. Glad you agree that jews have been persecuted by christians, including by christian laws in christian contries, for 1400 years, with a brief lapse at the end of the 20th century, until the wounds of the Holocaust became a distant memory, and people once again started reading the Gospels as if they meant what they obviously said. Like Mel Gibson's father, for example.

[donh]

You are a seriously sick individual.

Yet another brilliant refutation.