The gospel according to Gibson

International Herald Tribune ^ | August 1, 2003 | Frank Rich

[Map Kernow]

NEW YORK "The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.

These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."

"Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

Fears about what this ‘‘truth’’ will be have been fanned by the knowledge that Gibson bankrolls a traditionalist Catholic church unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Traditionalist Catholicism is the name given to a small splinter movement that rejects the Second Vatican Council — which, among other reforms, cleared the Jews of deicide. The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, which have lavished praise on Gibson and his project, reported in March in an adulatory interview with the star that the film’s sources included the writings of two nuns: Mary of Agreda, a 17th-century Spaniard, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early-19th-century German.

Only after Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, among others, spoke up about the nuns’ history of anti-Semitic writings did a Gibson flack disown this provenance.

Emmerich’s revelations include learning that Jews had strangled Christian children to procure their blood. It’s hard to imagine a scenario that bald turning up in ‘‘The Passion.’’ Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles). Its real tinderbox effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism has metastasized since Sept. 11, and where Gibson is arguably more of an icon (as his production company is named) than he is at home.

In recent weeks, Gibson has started screening a rough cut of his film to invited audiences, from evangelicals in Colorado Springs to religious leaders in Pennsylvania to celebrities in Washington. But the attendees are not always ecumenical. At the Washington screening, they included Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne, Linda Chavez and David Kuo, the deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiative.

The screening guest list did include a token Jew: that renowned Talmudic scholar Matt Drudge. No other Jewish members of the media were present, said one journalist who was there.

That journalist must remain unnamed as a result of signing a confidentiality agreement — a practice little seen at movie screenings. Since then, some of those present, including Drudge, have publicly expressed their enthusiasm for ‘‘The Passion.’’

If ‘‘The Passion’’ is kosher, couldn’t Gibson give Jews the same access to a Washington media screening, so they could see for themselves? Such inhospitality is not terribly Christian of him. One Jewish leader whose requests to see the film have been turned away is Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. ‘‘If you tell everyone they won’t see it until it’s ready, O.K.,’’ Foxman said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. ‘‘But what Gibson’s done is preselect those who’ll be his supporters. If the movie is a statement of love, as he says it is, why not show it to you or me?’’

When I addressed this question last week to the star’s press representative, Alan Nierob, he told me that the ADL was being kept out because it had gone public with its concerns — as indeed it had, once Foxman’s letter to Gibson about ‘‘The Passion’’ failed to net a meeting with the filmmaker or a screening three months after it had been sent. When I asked to see ‘‘The Passion,’’ Nierob said The New York Times was a ‘‘low priority’’ because The Times Magazine had run an ‘‘inaccurate’’ article in March in which Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father and a prominent traditionalist Catholic author, was quoted as saying that the Vatican Council was ‘‘a Masonic plot backed by the Jews’’ and that the Holocaust was a charade. But in fact, neither Hutton nor Mel Gibson — nor anyone else — has contacted the magazine to challenge the accuracy of a single sentence in the article in the four months since its publication.

Eventually, Gibson’s film will have to face audiences he doesn’t cherry-pick. We can only hope that the finished product will not resemble the screenplay that circulated this spring. That script — which the Gibson camp has said was stolen but which others say was leaked by a concerned member of the star’s own company — received thumbs down from a panel of nine Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars who read it. They found that Jews were presented as ‘‘bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry,’’ reported The Jewish Week, which broke the story of the scholars’ report in June.

Perhaps ‘‘The Passion’’ bears little resemblance to that script. Either way, however, damage has been done: Jews have already been libeled by Gibson’s politicized rollout of his film. His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the ‘‘entertainment elite’’ (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie. But based on what? According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ when Gibson went on O’Reilly’s show on Jan. 14 in January to defend himself against ‘‘any Jewish people’’ who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ or Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn’t yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.)

Whether the movie holds Jews of two millenniums ago accountable for killing Christ or not, the star’s pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Gibson. A similar animus can be found in a new book by one of Gibson’s most passionate defenders, the latest best seller published by the same imprint (Crown Forum) that gave us Ann Coulter’s ‘‘Treason.’’ In ‘‘Tales From the Left Coast,’’ James Hirsen writes, ‘‘The worldview of certain folks is seriously threatened by the combination of Christ’s story and Gibson’s talent.’’

Now who might those ‘‘certain folks’’ be? Since no one was criticizing ‘‘The Passion’’ when Hirsen wrote that sentence, you must turn elsewhere in the book to decode it. In one strange passage, the author makes a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan’s original name, Robert Zimmerman — a gratuitous motif in a tirade that is itself gratuitous in a book whose subtitle says its subject is ‘‘Hollywood stars.’’

Another chapter is about how ‘‘faith is often the subject of ridicule and negative portrayal’’ in Hollywood. One of the more bizarre examples Hirsen cites is ‘‘Sophie’s Choice,’’ in which ‘‘passages from the New Testament are quoted by Nazi officials in support of atrocities that were committed.’’

Now sectarian swords are being drawn. The National Association of Evangelicals, after a private screening of ‘‘The Passion,’’ released a statement last week saying, ‘‘Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel,’’ and implying that such support could vanish if Jewish leaders ‘‘risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.’’

Foxman says he finds that statement ‘‘obnoxious and offensive.’’

‘‘Here’s the first time we’ve heard that linkage: We support Israel, so shut up about anti-Semitism,’’ he added. ‘‘If that’s what support of Israel means, no thanks.’’

But the real question here is why Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile historical moment. It’s enough to make you pray for the second coming of Charlton Heston.

[yukong]

First, let me apologize for the length of this post. But I am sick to death about this whole complaint from the ADL and those in the Catholic church that are complaining that the gospel accounts are antisemetic and that the Vatican II had absolved the Jews of responsibility. But I beg your indulgence and read this post and the passages attached, and then, if need by, share them with those you confront that argue the same ADL line.

Jesus Christ was not the Messiah that the Chief Priests and Jewish leaders wanted. Jews of that day (and even today) believed that the Messiah was going to be an earthly King. That the Messiah would come and rule on the throne of David and return the Nation of Israel to world dominance as they were during David's rule. When Jesus came and began preaching a kingdom of Heaven and earth, and began preaching a gospel of love and peace, those of the Jewish faith that longed to be out from under the rule of Rome, and more powerful than Rome plotted to kill him. The gospel of Christ destroyed all that the religious leaders of that day had. The Chief Priests and elders were men of power and money. Christ preached a message that would take away their power and money. Their whole objection to Jesus was not so much religious as it was money. Man has never really changed. Power and money are the many objective for so many. They saw that if Jesus was successful, and allowed to continue unopposed, that it would mean an end to their power and money. An even cursory read of the 4 gospel accounts reveals that the Jewish leaders were plotting to kill Jesus from early in his ministry. Jews today can complain all they want, but it is clear...the Jewish leaders wanted him dead. Here are a few passages, not from Mel Gibson's script...but from the Holy Bible...what do they say?

Matthew 26:3-4 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him. (the chief priests and elders were of the Jewish church)

Matthew 27:1 When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death.

Mark 14:55 Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none.

Then on the Day of Pentecost, after Christ's death, the Apostle Peter, (who was a JEW)(the same one that the Vatican claims was the first Pope,) gave the following sermon. Who did he blame for Christ's death?)
Acts 2:22-38 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know -- 23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 "For David says concerning Him: 'I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. 27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. 28 You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' 29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the Romans were the ones that carried out the execution, since the Jews did not have that authority under law. But even the Romans were unhappy about it. Pilate and Herod didn't really want anything to do with it. As is recorded again in the Holy Writ.

Luke 23:1 Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." 3 Then Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" He answered him and said, "It is as you say." 4 So Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no fault in this Man." 5 But they were the more fierce, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee to this place." 6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean. 7 And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad; for he had desired for a long time to see Him, because he had heard many things about Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him. 9 Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing. 10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. 11 Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate. 12 That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other. 13 Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 14 said to them, "You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; 15 "no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. 16 "I will therefore chastise Him and release Him" 17 (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast). 18 And they all cried out at once, saying, "Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas" -- 19 who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder. 20 Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. 21 But they shouted, saying, "Crucify Him, crucify Him!" 22 Then he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go." 23 But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. 25 And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

John 19:1-16 1 So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him. 2 And the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe. 3 Then they said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they struck Him with their hands. 4 Pilate then went out again, and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him." 5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, "Behold the Man!" 6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, "Crucify Him, crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him." 7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God." 8 Therefore, when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid, 9 and went again into the Praetorium, and said to Jesus, "Where are You from?" But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then Pilate said to Him, "Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." 12 From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." 13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" 15 But they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!" 16 Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away.

So...according to the Word of God...who demanded, yes demanded the death of Jesus? The Jewish religious leaders. But it was about money and power. Period. But just because the Jews of 2000 years ago killed my Savior, doesn't mean that I am going to go out and attack Jews. Just as white people of 150 years ago owned black slaves, doesn't mean that white people today are going to try and bring back slavery. It is just stupid. The ADL has lost any and all credibility that they may have had with me.

I have seen the preview scenes that have been circulating here at FR and other sites. I must say...even the short preview made me misty eyed. Just those few moments of film showed to me just what torture that my Savior endured for ME. And I for one plan on seeing the movie...and when the DVD comes out, I plan on making several purchases of same. For me and for gifts for my family and friends. All I can say is God Bless Mel Gibson for having the courage to do what many, many people in the religious world won't do. Tell the truth.

[DPB101]

It is a business. He has a non-profit. He takes out over $400,000 a year, his wife about half that.

[Ingtar]

Blasting all Jews for the role of the religious elite in the crucifiction is like blaming all Germans for the actions of the Nazi party hierarchy in World War II.

[Courier]

Look at Iraq today.

A "mob" of Iraqis could demand anything and whether or not their "demands" are met will be decided by an American. Iraq is conquered.

Anyone in the foreseeable future with any say in anything in Iraq, including its Judiciary, will do so under American acquiescence at least, or American fiat at most.

Like Iraq today, Judea was conquered. The Romans controlled everything.

Blaming Jews is convenient. It would so hard today to point out a Roman to blame.

[Map Kernow]

It is a business. He [Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Wiesenthal Center] has a non-profit. He takes out over $400,000 a year, his wife about half that.

"Reich vi Koyre!" one would say in Yiddish---"rich as Midas!"

I'm in the wrong business...

[yukong]

After posting my long, long post, I found yours. I agree completely. I know of no Christian that holds todays Jews responsible for Christ's death, and yes, the Romans were guilty too. Pilate was too weak to stand up to the Jews. He didn't want to kill Jesus, but he too, was afraid that if he didn't keep the jews happy, he might loose his power and wealth. So he caved. Herod was a coward also, and passed the buck back to Pilate, because he too was scared to cause problems with the Jews. But for the Jews today and the Vatican II to say that the Jews of that day had no involvement in bringing about the death of Jesus, is just wrong. They demanded it.

But then again, let us not forget...that it was God's plan from the beginning, that Jesus would come...and that he would die, as the one, last, perfect sacrifice for my sins and yours.

[ExpandNATO]

Would you please find me the Romans involved in the initial arrest of Jesus at the garden of Gethsemene?

The Jewish elites had Jesus arrested. Tried him and then took Him to Pilate so that Pilate would actually perform the death sentence. Pilate decided he needed to please the locals (which would not have been necessary if Pilate had as much power as you claim).

Had the Jews elites not done the initial arrest there would have been no execution, since the Romans would not have cared what a local yokel was preaching. Had Pilate some courage he would have refused to execute. Both pagan leaders and Jewish leaders are guilty.

[Map Kernow]

Let me ask you this: do the Gospel Narratives of Jesus' Passion place the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people? That is the central issue here. Mel Gibson states that he has based the screenplay of "The Passion" on the Gospel Narratives, and people who have see the film at the screening mentioned in Rich's article attest that that is what Gibson has done.

The issue then is not whether or not Mel's movie "The Passion" is anti-Semitic, but whether the Gospels it is based on are.

[Courier]

Who were the Jewish elite?

When a Nation is conquered, the elite are those who are allied with the conquerer.

As to not caring about a local "trouble making" yokel, in the history of totalitarianism, since the beginning of history, the "Power that be" always gets rid of the agitator. History shows the Romans were not too kind to anyone questioning their power and just 70 years later they laid all of Judea to waste.

All this excitement over a movie.

It's a movie with actors.

How can anyone get excited when next year you may see "Jesus" playing a junkie.

[Map Kernow]

On another note, Dave Horowitz has partially redeemed himself in my eyes from his hit-piece a month ago on Ann Coutler's "Treason"---the ingratiating sonofagun!---by publishing a piece on "The Passion" on the NewsMax site here which states, and I quote, "It is not anti-Semitic, as the film-burners have charged." Dave's review is first-hand, good-faith, and laudable. And since Frank Rich has started this "Jew counting" business of supporters of Mel's film, add Dave Horowitz to the roster of Matt Drudge, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager...

[ExpandNATO]

Let me ask you this: do the Gospel Narratives of Jesus' Passion place the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people?

From my reading of the Gospels, the blame goes on everyone in Jerusalem at the time. The Roman governor ordered Jesus humiliated and executed, the Roman soldiers did the deed, the Jewish leaders and their servants performed the initial arrest and requested that the Romans carry out the death sentence, the Jewish people preferred clemency for a popular criminal and the disciples were hiding. No group escapes blame.

Individuals who might be considered to act honorably are: Peter for attempting to resist the high priest's servants and the member of the Sanhedrin who urged releasing Jesus and against the death sentence.

[Map Kernow]

How can anyone get excited when next year you may see "Jesus" playing a junkie.

A few years ago there was a off-Broadway (?) production, the name of which mercifully escapes me, portraying Jesus as---God forbid---the head of a band of homosexuals. Nobody from any church claimed the right to review the text of the play before it was staged to make sure there was nothing "anti-Christian" in it, and protests from Christians when it was staged were rebuffed, mocked and ignored.

[ExpandNATO]

Calling the Romans totalitarian is to not know history. They truly would not have cared about Jesus on their own.

Judea was laid to waste not because of "questioning", but rather an actual open revolt.

[semaj]

The author of this hit piece is a sensitive little fag isn't he.

[glaux]

The blame rests on both Jew and Gentile; in essence all of humanity. However, as pointed out in Isaiah 53(esp v 10) and elsewhere, all was completely under God's control. Therefore it was God's will, not man's, that Christ was crucified at calvary.

[semaj]

Not every Jew is responsible for the murder of Christ, but a select few of that day who held the reigns of power over the Temple and City of Jerusalem (the Sanhedrin). In the eyes of these fellows, Jesus was a direct threat to their power and authority, thus He had to die.

On the other side of the coin, it can be said that we are all responsible for the requirement of Christ's death upon the cross. A single sin was enough to require it, we are all guilty, but for His sacrifice.

[Elsie]

"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death."

 

---

 

Surprise......

 

HE's ALIVE!!!!!!

[Elsie]

Hebrews 7:22-25
 22.  Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
 23.  Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
 24.  but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
 25.  Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Revelation 1:18
 18.  I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

[The Iguana]

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles.

Mr. Rich might be surprised.

Not that I would ever expect him to admit as much.

[Map Kernow]

Rich and the ADL are generating priceless publicity for the film way in advance of distribution. People like myself are marking the proposed release date on Ash Wednesday 2004 on our calendars, and will doubtless go see it at least once.