Posted on 02/29/2004 9:16:18 PM PST by SJackson
I walked out of "The Passion of the Christ" early as Jesus was carrying the cross up the Via Dolorosa. We had a baby-sitter deadline. Besides, I already knew the ending. It's right there in the Gospels. None of the four New Testament accounts of Jesus' suffering and death is as lurid or sadistic as Mel Gibson's. But the biblical versions all tell the same story.
Jesus gets on the nerves of the Jewish priests of Jerusalem. They demand that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, put him to death. Pilate is at first unwilling but eventually orders the Crucifixion.
End of story.
At least to me. I don't believe Jesus was resurrected, that he was the son of God or the Messiah. I think of him - when I think of him at all - as just another charismatic revolutionary who threatened the status quo and paid with his life.
But I'm a Jew, not a Christian. And despite what many Jewish critics seem to believe, "The Passion" wasn't made for us. Or about us.
Judging from the reactions I see on TV, a lot of Christians - Protestant and Catholic alike - come out of the theater deeply moved by Gibson's movie. This reaction infuriates some Jewish scholars and activists. Gibson's distorting history, they charge. He lets the Romans off too easily. He puts the blame on the Jews. By which, of course, they mean: on us.
These Jews need to relax.
Gibson is telling a 2,000-year-old story. Most Christians are smart enough and reasonable enough to understand the distinction between Caiaphas and Jerry Seinfeld. It is insulting to suggest otherwise.
It also is insulting to instruct Christians on how to interpret their own religious texts. Hey, you're not allowed to read the Bible that way any more, the critics say. Go ask the Vatican. Check with the Harvard Divinity School.
This is reminiscent of recent American efforts to convince the world's Muslims that their reading of the Koran is incorrect.
The plain fact is that the Gospels are Christianity's collective account of the saga of Jesus, and, quibbles aside, "The Passion" is faithful to that account. Gibson didn't write an original screenplay. If his movie is anti-Semitic, it is because the New Testament itself (like the Koran) is a book that aims to supersede Judaism by discrediting it.
I know, I know, passion plays were used to whip up pogroms in medieval Europe. But in the words of an Israeli basketball coach on the eve of a road trip to Germany: What was, was.
And what is, is.
Today, Muslims are waging a worldwide jihad against "Zionists and Crusaders." Devout Christians are the allies of the Jews in this war. Branding these Christians as dumb and potentially dangerous bigots is obnoxious. It also is impolitic.
In fact, Jewish activists should embrace "The Passion." After all, if Jesus was divinely sent to die for mankind, then the high priest Caiaphas was God's instrument. If Jesus was just another rebel from the Galilee, well, no harm, no foul.
Besides, there is a pro-Israeli message in Gibson's movie.
Lately, Yasser Arafat has taken to declaring that the original inhabitants of Israel were Palestinians. But there are no Palestinians in Gibson's Jerusalem, just as there were none in the Gospels. Jesus and his disciples are as Israeli as Ariel Sharon.
The Arabs are still 600 miles and 600 years from the Holy Land.
If the Anti-Defamation League were smart, it would stop bugging Mel Gibson for an apology and ask instead for a couple hundred copies of the movie.
Wish I wrote it.
Waste of time. Abe Foxman is no more "Jewish" than is Mel Gibson. He is a Marxist, his theology Secular Humanism. Foxman aspires to be the Jewish Jesse Jackson. He is nothing but a fat, self-despising jackal. Real Jews see him for the fraud he is, and continue to forge alliances with Righteous Gentiles who see the common enemy in Islam (the one group that Foxman NEVER criticizes).
Foxman is a JINO. He would bring all Jews to ruin so long as it enriched his bank account. He is to be ignored and ridiculed. Nothing more.
BTTT
Excellent article.
I support Israel. I disagree with essentially everything I hear from the ADL. Does that make me an anti-Semite? Maybe it is the ADL that is really anti-Semitic.
Lousy grammar. Was does not equal "WERE". Idiot. Probably a 22 year old guy who.. never mind. Seen 'em reading and weeping when they push through lines of patient folks waiting to get on the bus.
Wow. You've got the ADL and Fuxman down to a 'T' - in three sentences no less.
Excellent job!
Understanding human nature and all the baggage we carry can go a very long way to understanding this story in its historical context. Jewish religious leaders (during a particular period of political weakness and religious uncertainty) were both worried about the Finger Pointer's impact on the Judeans causing Rome to crack-down, and on Jesus having become more popular than them. They "conveniently" put aside in their own minds the tacky irksomeness of the second issue for the high-minded concern of the first issue. If they were stronger in popularity, character and faith they would not have done it. (It was as if a ram had never been provided Abraham to spare Isaac -- specifically, innocents are not to be sacrificed for the guilty.)
But their reaction is understandable. It's a natural offshoot of any who are in position of authority and fearful of losing it.
What they did was in keeping with the patterns of their Roman overlords. They employed a very Roman method for ridding themselves of both problems. No, I don't mean the crucifixion, I mean employing a mob to make it appear that Jesus' removal was widely popular.
Now, next, is a very important element to consider. What is so smarmy about Pilate's role in all this, and normally ignored, for it depends a good deal on how one reads the words of the gospels, and it is very helpful to know Roman history when you do.
First off, Pilate certainly knew (just as most of us today could not know unless we studied Roman History) how Romanesque was the mob which demanded Jesus' execution.
It was thru the employ of the mob that Rome herself had been transformed by politically astute and ambitious schemers from a Republic (that thoroughly hated Kings) to a Dictatorship.
Since the Roman Emperor continued to cultivate its own rabble in order to retain control, Pilate almost certainly knew the Jewish Priests were following the Roman pattern. It can be read that he was needling them with his "But this man has committed no crime. I can see no guilt in him." After all, it is Jewish law which centers itself around God-based morally, not the whim of an Emperor. In light of this, I think anyone could see that Pilate's comments were quite urbane and cynical, a proudly Roman tradition by this time.
Those who despise the United States have been trying to use mobs to undermine us too. A good reason to suppress knowledge of the Bible and any of its stories, not just this one, is the same reason history courses have been revised. A populace unfamiliar with history is more easily led down old roads to enslavement.
Lately, Yasser Arafat has taken to declaring that the original inhabitants of Israel were Palestinians. But there are no Palestinians in Gibson's Jerusalem, just as there were none in the Gospels. Jesus and his disciples are as Israeli as Ariel Sharon.
The Arabs are still 600 miles and 600 years from the Holy Land.
If the Anti-Defamation League were smart, it would stop bugging Mel Gibson for an apology and ask instead for a couple hundred copies of the movie."
I'm glad to see someone else noticed this!
The New Testament does NOT try to "discredit" Judaism. Christianity is built on the foundation of Judaism. If we were to "discredit" our foundation, then the structure built upon it is weak and will not stand.
There were debates early in the history of the church about not including the Old Testament in the Bible of the new church... obviously that did not happen.
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.