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.

[lizma]

From the Medieval history I've read, it seems to me most of anti-semitism stems from the fact that

1) The powers to be deemed that in an agrarian society Jews could not own land (Why? I'm not sure. Medieval antisemitism?)

2)Loaning money for profit was not allowed in Christianity but allowed in Judaism and made some of them rich, i.e. target (as the "rich" are today)

3) The quickest way to get out of debt if you were a king, lord, or baron was to whip everyone into a Jew hating furor and expel them from your country.

Seems to me historically anti-semitism was been based on "follow the money" rather than who killed Christ.

[Rocky]

Gee, Satan walked among Jewish people in the film? Who else would be there except Jews (in Jerusalem, that is)?

"He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up." You have to do this when you make a movie out of a book - any book. The type of portrayal has to be tailored to the medium.

The question is, did he faithfully represent the gospel accounts? I haven't seen the movie yet, but the vast majority of the accounts that I have read say, "Yes."

"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."

It was a family affair. There were Jews on both sides of the issue. Jesus and his disciples were all Jews. The early church was Jewish. There have been Jewish Christians all through church history. The cross is not a separation between Jews and Gentiles. It is a separation between those who believe in Christ and those who do not.

I think Christians in the U.S. will oppose very strongly any tendency toward anti-Semitism, wherever it arises. The Apostle Paul describes Gentile believers as grafted in, while Jewish believers are part of the original tree. Through Christ, we were made one family. There is no more Jew or Gentile in Christ.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Japanese did not kill Jesus. The Cherokee did not kill Jesus. The Slavs did not kill Jesus.

The Jews enabled the Romans to kill Jesus! But the guilty Jews and Romans are all dead.

Hate baiting now is as stupid as collective guilt over 100 generations.

This shrink should know better, but Angst pays for Dr. K.

[John Lenin]

Kraut should stick to what he does best, exposing militant Islam for what it is. Anybody who thinks Gibson got as far as he did in Hollywood by being an anti-semite is crazy.

[Lawdoc]

To quote a phrase from the movie Krauthammer is an "idiota".

[wardaddy]

Charles Krauthammer on guns (4-5-1996, Page A19):

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

That's two strikes Chuckie!

[Mr. Mojo]

Has Chuck not gone on record being in favor of gun control in the past?

Yes.

"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain.  Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily.  It certainly cannot be done radically.  It will probably take one, maybe two generations.  It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction.  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

- Ch. Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19

And I have no idea if his views on this subject have changed. Let's hope so.

[thoughtomator]

I'm Jewish. I saw the movie with another Jew. Neither of us thought the movie had the slightest hint of antisemitism. Anyone who says otherwise is, in my opinion, fabricating it.

[drlevy88]

Japanese did not kill Jesus. The Cherokee did not kill Jesus. The Slavs did not kill Jesus.

Ahem, through their sins they (as you and I, and Mel) did

[Mr. Mojo]

lol.....you beat me to it.

[wardaddy]

Thank you. I'm trying to keep up with notable Jews who support either the film itself or consider it fair enough.

Medved, Lapin, Seigel, Bruckheimer, and some guy with Netanyahu had a column in the JP last week. I'm sure there are more....well, dang I know there are....a fair number of Jewish FReepers as well...not all but more than a few.

There are very very few Conservative Christians against the film and usually sadly because of some dumb archaic post Reformation garbage.

Thanks.

[hellinahandcart]

Oh, now THAT hurts even more to read.

I don't suppose there's any possibility he's changed his mind in the past decade?

[Texasforever]

What you mean we missed you? Dang. When are these continuous predictions of anti-Semitic rampages going to appear?

[FreedomSurge]

I was moved to violence after the film. The Romans were so cruel to Jesus that I walked around the mall for hours after the movie looking for some Romanian butt to kick begore I calmed down.

[Sabertooth]

With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

The Romans come off far worse than the Jews, and there are far more noble Jews than there are Romans in the film

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.

Not in America.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

Krauthammer's incomprehending screed, easily his worst ever, is starting to look like an act of interreligious aggression.

Of course their were villainous, stiff-necked, rebellious Jews in the Gospels and the New Testament. Why would it be any different than the Old Testament?

Is the Old Testament also an anti-Semitic document?

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. ....

The opening scriptural reference is to Isaiah 53, which along with Chapter 52 prophesies the scourging and mutilation of Christ far more than do the Gospels.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews

And with the Romans.

Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews.

Satan was attempting to see to it that the King of the Jews was murdered.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier

In the close-ups of the nails being driven into Jesus' hands, it is Mel Gibson's own hands that do the deed.

Not a Jew's hands. Not a Roman's hands. Mel Gibson's own hands.

The guilt is on all of us. This was Gibson's way of showing what Paul taught: that we are all accountable for the Crucifixion.

We all put Christ on the Cross.

[Travis McGee]

Krauthammer is also a gun-grabber who thinks only the military and police need firearms in a civilized society.

Quite an ignorant opinion, from one who lost unarmed family to the well-armed German military and police in the Nazi Holocaust.

[mercy]

Oh gee .... now you all have to hate Krauthammer too. That's tough. Can't let a little thing like normal human respect amoungst the races get in the way of your crusade though. Buh bye Chuck. Your fair weather friends will not miss you.

[drlevy88]

Yeah, didn't you just want to march into the nearest supermarket and smash all the bottles of Pompeiian Olive Oil????

[Salamander]

I have a weird interpretation of that passage.
Instead of a curse, what if it was a blessing in disguise?
["to bless" originally meant "to cover in blood"]
His blood was upon them and their children, and all the rest of -us- and our children, too.
Without His blood upon us, we'd all be headed to Hell with no hope at all.
God took Satan's plan to destroy Jesus and turned it around to provide salvation to the whole world, instead.
God wrote the book on taking seemingly awful things and working them around for the good. [Joseph and his brothers, for a good OT example]
"His blood be upon us" is actually a wonderful thing, if we accept it.

That's just my opinion and probably why I don't "blame the Jews". [or the Romans, either, for that matter, when it was all of our sin that killed Him]
It was really more a fulfillment of prophecy statement than "curse".
His was the blood of the lamb to be spread on *all* door posts.