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.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Even before your post I was thinking that the Romans had a pretty cruel reputation, so I'm sure any crucifiction would have been brutal. IIRC, the final agent of death on the cross is suffication, because you your lungs collapse. Breaking the legs was a way to keep you from lifting your torso up to get air into the lungs. Something like that. Anyway, the point is they wouldn't just nail you up and leave you to die from exposure after a week. They wanted to make sure you were dead pretty quickly, so they worked you over first.

[Agnes Heep]

When I was a kid we were big on going down to the library and looking at art books ... not for the art, mind you, but to see naked women. But if anyone ever asked, we were looking at the art.

[.cnI redruM]

It's quite possible Christ was dead before they took him off the cross. British sailors that were flogged through the fleet or repeatedly keelhauled were dead long before the Master-At-Arms got through with the sadism. The ceremonial aspects of the punishment were carried through as long as the body remained recognizably human. The point was civic intimidation.

[Revolting cat!]

[snip] While it's not mentioned in the press handouts, Gibson has told interviewers that he was heavily influenced by a 19th century book of visions, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," by Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German nun and mystic.

Emmerich's visions about the torture of Jesus are known for their extremely negative depiction of Caiphas and the Jewish crowds.

In her vision, Emmerich describes "the cruel Jews almost devouring their victim with their eyes" and a "crowd of miscreants -- the very scum of the people.''

While Caiphas is painted as the incarnation of evil, Emmerich sees Pilate as "that proud and irresolute pagan, that slave of the world, who trembled in the presence of the true God.''

continued...

[Steve_Seattle]

I wonder if this guy raised any questions of historical accuracy with "The Last Temptation of Christ"?

[donh]

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

Than why does the Bible blame the "chief priests and scribes"?

What a pile of irresponsible dog droppings; try not to break your righteous christian wrists patting yourselves on your righteous christian backs. The Gospels, in literally hundreds of passages--the most egregious of which are the very one you quoted here, and 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.

If "all people are equally to blame for the crucifixion of christ", than why the bloody nought can't you be bothered to translate your holy book so that it says so? Bloodthirsty hypocrites.

[JSteff]

Great insight, good commentary.

[cyncooper]

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.

Esterbrook is mixing up the scourging with the mocking with the reed and hands. (I note Esterbrook avoids mentioning the crown of thorns pressed upon Jesus' head).

Whether he is being deliberately disingenuous or just misunderstood the passages in his haste to say Gibson is wrong, I will not judge. I just know he is wrong. The scourging and the reed business are two different episodes of what Christ endured. Matthew places the sequence

Matthew27:26-31

Then he released for them Barabbas,and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
Then the soldeirs of the governor took Jesus into the praetorium, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spat upon him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.

John 19:1-3

Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; they came up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and struck him with their hands.

-End Excerpts-

Mark is similar, saying he was scourged, but admittedly the sequence is not as clearly defined as Matthew.

[.cnI redruM]

Let's suppose Caiphas was a total jerk. Let's also suppose Caiphas had parents of Jewish ancestry who attempted to raise Caiphas to be a nice kid. And let's suppose that despite all the noble efforts of his parents, Caiphas insists on pulling the wings off of flies and grows up to be an obnoxious jerk.

If Mel Gibson makes Caiphas look like a jerk in his movie, and if arguably overdoes making Caiphas look like a jerk in his movie, does that make Gibson's movie antisemitic?

[Steve_Seattle]

Since you mention Stone, I recall that few critics had anything bad to say about his cavalier view of the facts in "JFK." In that film , historical accuracy went right out the window, and he slandered the living and the dead, implying that everyone from LBJ to the Dallas police chief was involved in the plot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that film received academy awards, despite its contempt for historical accuracy.

[cyncooper]

This man is a theological idiot, alluding to only the four Gospels.

Well, the movie is based on the four Gospels, and as I just pointed out, Esterbrook managed to either misconstrue accidentally or misrepresent deliberately, what they say.

[.cnI redruM]

That just might have been the way it happened. The Pharisees had a serious bone to pick with Christ and didn't have a problem with getting rid of him for political expediency. I don't think that accurately pointing out the corrupt and amoral practices of religious leaders means that the author carries a bias against the faith.

EG. Any Catholic Priest that sexually molests an 8 year old acolyte and then gets his bishop to rig up a transfer should have no more of a chance of getting into heaven that a camel should have of passing through the eye of a needle. Decide for yourself whether my statement makes me inherently anti-catholic.

[roylene]

I am sure you remember that Isaiah says that the Messiah will not have a broken bone. It was a customary rule for the Romans to break the legs of those crucified to bring on the death of the victim. It prevented them from standing straight on the cross, death actually came from suffocation because of the way they were positioned on the cross. So of course they could not push up on the block to prevent the suffocation if their legs were broken.

[Ann Archy]

The reason that SOME Jews get blamed maybe is because Pilate OFFERED them a CHOICE...Jesus or Barrabas, a MURDERER, to be released on the Jewish Holiday.....the Jewish majority CHOSE Barrabas to be released and Jesus to be killed.

It wasn't ALL Jews of course.

[bondserv]

Isaiah 52:14-15
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Crucification doesn't marr one's visage beyond any man in all history.

Jesus went beyond any punishment ever dealt out to any man, ever!

[Mamzelle]

Much of the bloodletting here has to do with OT prophesies and the sacrifice of the "perfect lamb" of Passover--for the ritual to fulfill the poetry and prophecy, not only would the Jews have to take part, but the Levite priesthood. The door must be stained with blood, top/bottom/sides, crosslike, with the blood of the lamb to fend off the Angel of Death--it all was a circle of time, from Moses to Jesus, from the plagues to the Resurrection. No bone must be broken, and none was. "And what is different about this day?" It was left to the Romans only to finish the deed.

It's another fact, this story, that Christians shy away from, not wanting to be accused of accusing "blood libel"--But we also cannot change what is written.

Not being Catholic, I don't know about the Lentan liturgy. I only know of the Holy Week celebrations in my own Protestant church, which ever assumed unshakeable solidarity with those who brought about the crucifixion.

Original sin, human nature being what it is, I can't be surprised that spite would turn the rituals into persecution. But that doesn't mean that Christians can turn over their worship to the mavens of political correctness.

[bondserv]

Ping to above!

[cyncooper]

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.

My goodness, but you are the one seething in your own hate. I haven't an anti-semitic bone in my body.

I observe the only bile spewing here emanates for you.

[AFPhys]

It states in the Bible that Jesus was dead before they even came to break the legs of those crucified (to get the bodies out of the way before the Passover Sabbath.) That surprised the soldiers, since people typically took a LONG time to die from crucifixion since (unless the legs were broken) they died from suffocation being too tired to hold themselves up.

Gibson certainly did a great deal of historical research about Roman torture methods before the movie was shot - that is clear to me - and everything I've yet heard about it is consistent with the whole of the Bible. I'm amazed that anybody who claims to be a religious scholar is objecting that the level of violence portrayed is not realistic.

I'm still shaking my head and asking myself why they are denying it.

[bobo1]

Well, the movie is based on the four Gospels, and as I just pointed out, Esterbrook managed to either misconstrue accidentally or misrepresent deliberately, what they say.

Misrepresent Deliberately, I would surmise. He claimed theological competence. It is easy to see he has none. Just because it was based on the four Gospels, which it is, does not negate other "theological" references. I stand by my original post.

Blessings, bobo