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]

A couple of points.

1) Pilate held his commission from Rome. He was in charge at the time. The buck stops at his desk, and he can wash his hands all he wants. So could Lady Macbeth. Blaming the crucifixtion on the Jews is ignorance.

2) Easterbrook ascribes motives to the movie that I very seriously doubt were intended. I think he espouses a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[JennysCool]

The Libs are just OBSESSED with this movie, trying every angle to hit it This whole atmosphere is a lot like the 2000 election. They see the almost total failure of their value system, and rail against it.

[prion]

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.

Gee, I wonder if he was equally troubled by that made-for-TV hit-piece on The Reagans? Or, say, any movie by Oliver Stone? Or is it just a certain sort of movie viewer he thinks is incapable of sorting truth from film?

[roylene]

Looking at the historical context plus Biblical accounts Jesus was flogged or scrogged with a cat-of-nine-tails: a whip with nine pieces of leather that had bits of stone and pottery attached, the purpose was to rip the flesh off the bone. A death sentence was 40 lashes, Jesus was given 39. The Divine plan was for Him to be crucified. The beating leading to the crucification was brutal and horrific but He went willing for us. He went willingly - most powerful!

[.cnI redruM]

I don't understand it. I've known perfectly decent, people, who have a much better church attendance record than I'll lay claim to. I simply fail to see why there is so much vitriol there.

[Prolifeconservative]

Jesus did not choose to die an easy death. God may have well ordained it that Jesus died from a poisoned drink. He didn't, therefore, if God chose Christ to suffer an excrutiating death for our multitude of sins, He wouldn't have pulled up short.

It is my belief that Christ did indeed suffer as depicted in this movie. Ultimately, it comes down to your Faith and you understanding of God's nature, His mercy and love.

[HitmanLV]

Here's one point:

It's lucky Mel didn't make a movie glorifying degenerates! No telling how much heat he would have on him then!

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, I'm sure Stone's depiction of US soldiers bringing German Shepherds and Nazi paraphernalia into battle in Vietnam (the end of Platoon) is perfectly acceptable to Mr. Easterbrook. No film maker's guess on that one. No siree, Bob.

[Wright is right!]

"The Libs are just OBSESSED with this movie, trying every angle to hit it."

The local Gannett rag in Nashville splashed a big article across the front page and page 2 about a "panel" of 10 "theologians, religious leaders and community members" it hewed from the liberal forest and discussed the movie. On the panel were three blacks, who all said Jesus should have been portrayed as a black. They all said the cast looked "too European."

Predictably, the Jews on the panel said it was anti-Semitic.

The white Christians on the panel said it was too bloody.

Not one person on the panel said anything positive about the film.

Why am I inclined to believe that the panel's makeup was pre-designed to only include people on whom the paper could reliably count on to bash the movie?

Round up the usual suspects, Louie.

Michael

[bobo1]

This man is a theological idiot, alluding to only the four Gospels. Has he not read Isaiah 53? How about Psalm 22? Is he such an idiot that he did not think that Gibson used the whole Bible? Give this idiot who claims some sort of association with theology a "thumbs down".

Tired of the stupid claiming knowledge they do not possess.

Blessings, bobo

[AFPhys]

I've got a (weird) friend - a historian whose specialty is pre-Renaissance torture - techniques, results, etc. He informed me long before this movie ever was a thought that there are many contemporary texts available which describe the Roman methods of torture and crucifixion.

I've not yet seen the movie, (tomorrow, hopefully) but everything I've heard about it seems consistent with those ancient writings on the subject.

OF COURSE the Bible isn't that graphic about the subject - nor is it graphic about the bloody mess remaining after a stoning or being fed to the lions, etc. It is up to the reader to endeavor to study to comprehend the meaning of the text.

I'm wondering why the "theologians" and "bible scholars" who are being so critical of Gibson's work choose to ignore the other historical works that can cast illumination on the meaning of "flogging" and "scourging". Perhaps they believe believe Jesus got "kid glove" treatment by the Roman thugs? Perhaps they are simply ignorant of important work pertaining to their chosen field? Why?

[TheBigB]

Easterbrook was fired from ESPN.com and took a lot of heat The New Republic for anti-semitic remarks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004564/posts

[Glenn]

So, where is the libel?

[petro45acp]

Couple of points.

The "scourging" that that is discussed is known to have been accomplished with rawhide or leather whips with bits of meatal or stone worked into them. The Koine Greek word for scourge means "skin alive with a whip." The punching and beating came from soldiers who at the time were known for their strength and ferocity. The reed used was of a type (historically) that split then cut the flesh when used. His face was noted to have been disfigured as to render recognition difficult.

And through all this "...as a lamb before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth" A carpenter in an age where all work was done with heavy tools, a powerfully built man could withstand all this. A powerful man who recognized the importance of his mission would surely survive all this. The only way Gibson could mistate the process would be to have Christ whimper, whine or cry out in any way during its conduct.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I expect few suprises.

[.cnI redruM]

Don't expect Mr. Easterbrook to take a 20-second timeout from his bile to examine any historical context. The Romans considered those who they crucified as less than human. If Jesus couldn't stand up in court and proclaim "Romanus sum.", he was a piece of meat, as far the Roman authorities were concerned.

[Rutles4Ever]

But but but -- I thought Esterbrook believed that the "Jews run Hollywood" -- I thought he blamed the Jews for the violence in "Kill Bill".

How can this be?


Hmmmm

[AFPhys]

Good point. I should also have stated in my earlier post #11 that there was a very good reason that Jesus was already dead when the soldiers came to break the legs of those crucified... he was flogged nearly to death.

[.cnI redruM]

Easterbrook accuses Gibson of trivializing the Gospels for politically partisan gain. Reread the last sentence of the article and you'll see why I gave this a libel alert. It's a little garish to drop a bomb like that on someone's good name and call their body of work a cynical accomplishment.

[.cnI redruM]

I've called this man bipolar before....

[Mr. Bird]

Easterbrook learned his lesson in Political Correctness and is now serving his penance. I defended him at the time of his controversy, and yet here he is ascribing motives just as he was unfairly criticized. What a jerk.