Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[ZULU]

Actually, the anti-Semites, Foxman, Krauthammer and lot of other people are missing the message.

I didn't see the movie myself - doubt if I will. I'm a Biblical History buff and Roman history buff and know enough about the period to know its not perfectly historical. Few movies are. And it looks too bloody for me.

But the message of the movie (and the Gospels) seems to be that Christ died to save all men from their sins. That he willingly chose to sacrifice himself that way. That if he hadn't appeared and been killed in 31 A.D. by the Romans and the High Priests, he would have appeared somewhere else. They were just God's tools in His plan for salvation.

One of the places I disagree with Gibson's apparent interpretation (again - I didn't see the movie) is his portrayal of the entire Jewish crowd as being anti-Christ.

My impression of things is that Christ had become too popular with the Jewish masses, and that was the real reason the High Priest in the Synhedrin - most of them - wanted him killed. They wanted to preserve their power, their lifestyle, their wealth and their cozy relationship with Rome. So I think that the mob who was assembled there calling for Christ's death and the release of Barabas was well sprinkled with Syherinic goons who made sure their feelings were the only ones which prevailed. The guard assigned to march Him to Golgotha may very well have been there to prevent the main Jewish mob from rescuing Him. Who knows?

The canard about "His blood be on our children and our children's children" appears in only ONE of the Gospels and may very well have been a later insertion in the original work. At any rate, MOST of the Jews were not there - just the Synhedrinic cronies.

The entire situation in Judea at the time was very confused and turbulent with many different factions competing against themselves and against or for Rome. No one has definitely identified the Qumran Community as to what sect they belonged. Reading Josephus, he describes an actual war going on within Jersualem between three separate Jewish factions - WHILE THE ROMANS WERE ACTUALLY INVESTING THE CITY.

Our records of the period are unfortunately very incomplete.

At any rate, Christ's entire career was centered on criticism of the Temple hierarchy, the Pharisees and Saduccees for having misled the Jewish people and fallen away from mainstream Judaism and the message of God.

I'm sure that was the key to their hatred of Him and the ostenible reason for His death.

[sinkspur]

I'm saying they are abandoning truth and logic in favor of personal belief. What's your reason for their actions?

You think that if someone disagrees with you about a movie, they're abandoning "truth and logic." They are Jews; they see and are sensitive to things you are not.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I marvel at the magnificent marketing job Gibson did in ginning up interest in this movie.

And he handled the "Jewish" issue quite deftly, never quite letting anyone know where he stands. Controversy, of course, is good for business, and it will continue to be good for business.

The ADL played right into his hands. Gibson should give Abe Foxman a cut.

[sinkspur]

You can't seriously argue that Mel Gibson made this movie to make money

Only if Gibson very publicly gives every dime he makes off this movie to charity.

[philosofy123]

Actually, Mel gave in to Jewish pressures, and allowed them to censor a major statement from the bible: His blood is on us and our children after us. Mel did not include this statement due to Abe Foxman pressure.

On the other hand, we have "some” Jews two thousands years ago killing a Jew. How is it that depicting this is related to Jews of today? The reality of this movie, the Passion is Gibson showed the "Romans" beating Jesus! Have you heard any bitching from your Italian friends as far as that is going to cause violence against Italians? Oh, oh, but the Italians that killed Jesus are not related to the current Italians! However the Jewish mob of two thousand years ago all related to Foxman, Krauthammer, Safire, and Spielberg. Guys, you sound sooo stupid, give it a rest. This is one more stupid columnist that I will stop reading.

[sinkspur]

>When the smoke clears, and Charen, Kraut and Kristol go back to beating the wardrums...well, I suppose we all will still be working for Israel.

Oh, the old "neo-con" canard. And all these neo-cons are Jews, right?

Code words.

[montag813]

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film

I am forced to agree with Krauthammer here. It greatly irritates me that Gibson chose to depart from the Gospels in so many places and use in their place the lurid fantasies of some stupid German nun. Who gives a crap what she wrote? The Gospels are more than sufficient to tell the story. Anne Catherine Emmerich should have been left out.

[Mamzelle]

Gibson took a very large financial risk in making this movie. That makes it even more fun--I don't know exactly how much he sank into it. One place I read $25M, another $40--but boxofficemojo.com has US tickets at $154M most recent.

It's made more than Mystic River, Cold Mountain.

[montag813]

The Israel-first evangelicals perhaps will have their eyes opened by the anti-christian viciousness displayed by some of the neoconservatives

How is it "anti-Christian" to criticize Gibson's reliance upon Anne Catherine Emmerich vs. the Gospels?

[Taliesan]

Whether he keeps the money or not has nothing to do with his motivation for making the movie in the first place. He was fully prepared to sink 30 million.

Your attribution of a certain motive to him, with no evidence, it itself evidence of your motive.

You're jealous.

[Just mythoughts]

"I'm saying they are abandoning truth and logic in favor of personal belief. What's your reason for their actions?
You think that if someone disagrees with you about a movie, they're abandoning "truth and logic." They are Jews; they see and are sensitive to things you are not.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I marvel at the magnificent marketing job Gibson did in ginning up interest in this movie.

And he handled the "Jewish" issue quite deftly, never quite letting anyone know where he stands. Controversy, of course, is good for business, and it will continue to be good for business.

The ADL played right into his hands. Gibson should give Abe Foxman a cut."


I'm sorry Mel handed nothing to no one. Mel made it known he wanted to make this movie and there were no takers. He proceeds upon his own and SOMEBODY stole his script.

That is where all the publicity came from, a THEFT!

Reason I know about Mel's movie wasn't from Mel, cause I don't pay attention to Hollywood and their movies. Spending my money on their wares puts $$$$$$$$ into bjclintons pockets.

[sinkspur]

On the other hand, we have "some” Jews two thousands years ago killing a Jew. How is it that depicting this is related to Jews of today?

The oldest hatred in history is the blood libel pinned on the Jews for being the instruments of the death of Christ.

If you're not aware of the background and what havoc that has wrought to the Jews in the last 2000 years, you should read about it.

In any case, it's just a disagreement about a movie. I don't see why people take it personally. And, you're the loser if you never read Krauthammer again.

[philosofy123]

My friend, these are hysterical idiots. As a matter of fact, I heard a rabbi from Seattle saying that all these liberal Jews from Hollywood are not even religious they are mostly godless. They are Jews by name only, as a club of “us against them”. This paranoia is causing them to offend the same people that loves and supports them. That is sooo stupid if you ask me.

[Taliesan]

You're assuming the flogging scene was based on the nun, and not on Isaiah 53. Which, of course, was on the screen in the first frame.

[sinkspur]

You're jealous.

I'm certainly not jealous of a schismatic Catholic with a nutty anti-semitic father.

When somebody tells you something's not about money, when there's lots of money involved, don't ever believe them.

[Mamzelle]

Code words! Oh, bah. That's libbo-babble. If I mean "Jew"--I'll say it, and I meant "neocon". You're the hint-hinter, not I. And I don't mind saying that after the "Passion" plays out in public, I'd like a few more pundits that are evangelical Christians, or conservative Catholics--if that sends you into a paroxysm , so be it. I know distaste from my pundits when I feel it--

[Sloth]

I am appalled. SCREW Krauthammer.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Aren't all the heroes and heroines in this story, save one, Jewish? This is the point that those expressing these fears seem to ignore. And that ALL of Jesus' followers, at this point, were Jewish.

That is similiar to blaming ALL Americans for fighting to keep Slavery when, in fact, hundreds of thousands gave their lives explicitly fighting to end it. Others, of course, fought for different reasons and the War was not cast in that light but many of the Union soldiers fought to end slavery.

I am sorry to see Krauthammer write in this fashion and only tell half the story, I thought he was more honest and intelligent to try and peddle this Leftist line. He also ignores the cultural and financial position of the Jews in Europe when they were massacred under the pretense that they were responsible for Christ's death.

Often, their killers were just thugs- ignorant, indifferent or actually opposed to any true Christian ideals. Certainly, unlike the Koran, there are no exhortations within the Bible to kill and loot from those not within the Christian religion.

[xsmommy]

a schismatic Catholic

yes it does come down to that with you.

[ultima ratio]

And an equal number of Christians did all they could to help Jews escape the Holocaust. This is a deliberately UNDERTOLD story, but there were thousands of Christians who risked their lives. There's a lot of anti-Christian bigotry going on in these tales of Christian complicity.

[sinkspur]

You're assuming the flogging scene was based on the nun, and not on Isaiah 53

Have you read Emmerich's writings? They're graphic. And, they're "visions," which means they're filtered through the prejudices and experiences of the visionary.

And, they may not even be HER visions, as a secretary transcribed them. The Vatican has long questioned the motivations of this secretary.