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.

[rbmillerjr]

"It does however seem as if there might be an element of antisemitism here."

WHERE?

You see it is easy to cast that aspersion to the film, but it is much harder to support it.

[rdb3]

Buddy you need to go back to Liberty Forum.

You, too, see the true underlying premise behind this "man's" post, right?

[SoCar]

The Roman Emperor's role seems to have been downplayed while the Jewish High Priests are the more villainous. Again, I haven't seen the movie but that is what several conservative Jews have said. I pay no mind to the opinion of liberal Jews.

Personally, I am more concerned about Mel's lack of total repudiation of his father's remarks and the obvious Christian sentiment that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you are doomed to eternal damnation and need our prayers. Respect my beliefs as I respect yours and keep your private pity to yourself.

[Texasforever]

Very transparent.

[Cold Heat]

Read the historical record on Pilot, then the related biblical passages and then see the movie.

Before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

[cookcounty]

"The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith."

The Romans required the christians to abandon monotheism --under pain of death.

[Pelham]

Why Walter Mondale's speechwriter ever became popular among some conservatives has always been a mystery to me. Didn't the fact that he wanted Reagan to lose give them a clue?

[Cold Heat]

Mel's lack of total repudiation of his father's remarks

He said he was in total disagreement with his father on that subject.

Would you publicly attack your aged father for his remarks, or would you?

[rbmillerjr]

"Mel's lack of total repudiation of his father's remarks and the obvious Christian sentiment that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you are doomed to eternal damnation and need our prayers."

Actually if you watched the Sawyers interview you saw Gibson confirm his belief that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. He made it clear that he wouldnt comment on his father who he loves.

You say you respect Christianity but nobody is forcing anybody to see the movie. It is a movie about Christ's death on the cross to save all - that is Christianity. Nobody is forcing non-believers to view the film.

"Roman Emperor's role seems to have been downplayed while the Jewish High Priests are the more villainous. ..."

Theologically, we are all contributors to Christ's death. Historically, the Jewish High Priests served up Christ to the Romans to crucify.

[Tennessee_Bob]

The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith.

So, I guess that means that Nero, Valerian and Diocletian have all been misrepresented?

Pliny the Younger told Emperor Trajan that he was executing those who refused to recant - and Trajan's reply?

You have taken the method which you ought in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians, for indeed no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought for; but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished; but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.

From Jesus to Christ. 1998, PBS.

[Sabertooth]

You didn't understand me Sabertooth. I don't want you to post any more comments to me. Please comply.

I understand you perfectly.

You want to post whatever nasty thing you please, in a vacuum.

These are public threads; it doesn't work that way.

If you post on an open thread, and I'm inclined to respond, I'll do so without hesitation.

[Torie]

Charge one as to departing from the gospels to make Jews look worse than the gospel story:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.

Charge two is that the satan wraiths merge with the Jewish "mob" (which wraiths are also apparently not in the gospels). Whether the overall gestalt of the message is that the Jewish mob were temporarily taken over by Satan, or that they were the functional equivalent of Satan, I don't know. I have not seen the film.

So the issue is, is what is Mel's defense to artistic license not in the gospels, that make the Jewish mob, and Jewish authorities, look worse than the gospels suggest?

I agree that Kraut's overall thrust is over the top. The gospels are what they are. For those of us who are non-believers, it is all understandable. The Romans and the Jewish authorities offed folks that they perceived threatened their authority all the time. The place did not have the American Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus. But to the extent Mel departs from the gospels, to make the Jews look worse to believers than the gospels "teach," he is fair game for criticism.

What say you?

[vbmoneyspender]

That's not true. If you were part of the Roman empire, you had to worship the emperor as a god. If you did not, then the Romans did bad things to you like crucifying you or throwing you to the lions. There are numerous other examples of this type of behaviour among other political elites because up until the American Revolution, political elites invariably attempted to cloak their political authority with religious authority. What that meant was that unless you accepted the state religion as your own, you became both a traitor and a heretic.

Where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are different from past religions is that they are monotheistic. As a result, adherents are not able to worship any additional gods beyond the one God that they recognize. Contrast this with pagans who can easily add new gods to their respective pantheons, and the effect of this importance difference becomes apparent. If you were a pagan living during the Roman Empire you could continue to worship your gods as long as you recognized that Caesar was a god as well. However, if for some reason your pagan religion was like Christianity and didn't allow you to worship Caesar as a god, then you would have been treated exactly like the Christians were treated - which meant you either had to convert to the belief that Caesar was a god or else you had to die.

The point is, the fault that you raise with respect to the great monotheistic religions is not inherent to those religions. Rather the fault is inherent to men who would seek to increase their worldly power by claiming a divine right to rule over others.

[SoCar]

I would attack my aged father's remarks without attacking him personally. I heard and read what Mel had to say and it was a wishy-washy repudiation to say the least. He was not in "total disagreement" as you say. Please read David From's article posted today.

No one will ever convince me what is antisemitic and what is not. I am more then qualified to judge that for myself.

I do understand how important this movie is to Christians. I can appreciate that. However, I cannot and will not overlook Gibson's failure to recognize the murder and attempted extermination of all Jews and how that is different then other "atrocities" afflicted on non Jews. The Holocaust was a singular horrific event that targeted Jews and cannot be lumped together as an equal with other tragedies. Those that do so are antisemitic in this Jew's opinion.

[TigersEye]

This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian.

That's not true. I found it very uplifting.

[mercy]

Uh Oh. Stand by for some good christian love.

[Torie]

Fair comment I think. I would certainly dissociate myself from the remarks of my father if he made them, aeo instante. The holocaust was singular because it was an efficient effort to exterminate a people in the modern age through high tech tools, that was given a priority higher than even the Nazi War effort.

[Cold Heat]

If the movie had been 100% gospel, it would have been but 15 minutes long.

The extrapolations made were logical and or cinematic, as in the case of the visual of evil.

Evil is everywhere! Not just within the walls of that Jewish town so many years ago.

How it might be seen is imagined by Gibson. As part of a crowd, as a snake, as a tree.

As to making the Jews appear worse than the gospel, Gibson really softened that aspect. some biblical quotations were omitted and great care was taken to convey that not all were complicit, but only a few and even the High priests were not unified.

[Torie]

Perhaps you point is that Kraut ignored where Mel mitigated rather than exacerbated from what was in the gospels, and thus overall one can conclude his overall motive was to make gripping cinema, rather than to settle a score with the Jews. If your point is valid, that is a very trenchant observation, and is the single most effective riposte to Kraut's J'accuse. JMO.

[SoCar]

You say you respect Christianity but nobody is forcing anybody to see the movie. It is a movie about Christ's death on the cross to save all - that is Christianity. Nobody is forcing nonbelievers to view the film.

You are correct, no one is forcing me to see the movie. What I resent is the local radio station encouraging Christians to bring along nonbelievers. I can only assume that includes Jews that they want to convert. Picture yourself as a Christian minority in a Muslim country where an equivalent Muslim religious movie was creating a big stir. How would you feel if your local radio station was encouraging Muslims to take a Christian friend along with the obvious implication of conversion apparent? Be honest.