'The Passion' & the tar baby

Jerusalem Post ^ | Feb. 28, 2004 | Jonathan Rosenblum

[Alouette]

Jews concerned about Mel Gibson's The Passion face a classic tar-baby situation: The harder they struggle, the worse they make their situation. Though the battle may have helped a few Jewish defense organizations replenish their coffers, its principal achievement to date has been to ensure The Passion one of the largest first-week grosses in Hollywood history, and to allow Gibson to skillfully portray himself as the Defender of the Gospels under siege.

From whom? The Jews.

As Melanie Phillips astutely observes, the more Jews complain about anti-Semitism, the greater the anti-Semitism. Charges of anti-Semitism enrage real anti-Semites, who dismiss such charges as more Jewish whining, and dismay Christians who do not recognize any hatred of Jews in their hearts.

An even more fundamental problem confronts those worried about the effect of The Passion. It is impossible for Jews to criticize Gibson's film without being perceived as attacking the Christian Gospels upon which it is largely based. Given the relative number of Jews and Christians in the world, that is a losing proposition.

That is not to say that Jewish concern is unfounded. Passion plays, even without the mesmerizing effect of the big screen and Technicolor special effects available to Gibson, have a long and ignominious history of inciting pogroms.

As the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby points out, Gibson seems to have no interest in Jesus's life as a Jew, or even in why he would have been of concern to either Roman or Jewish authorities. His almost exclusive focus is on his brutal death at the hands - primarily - of the Jews.

Gibson belongs to a breakaway sect of Catholic "traditionalists" that rejects as illegitimate the reforms of Vatican II, including the absolving of the Jewish people of collective guilt for Jesus's death. Gibson's father, Hutton, dismisses Vatican II as a "conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews." (Last week, Hutton Gibson insisted that the extermination camps were merely work camps.) About his father Mel says: "That man never lied to me in his life."

Faced with the threat posed by Gibson's film, Jews needed a good measure of the brains for which former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad so "praised" us. The tragedy is that American Jewry today lacks a leader of the stature of the late Rabbi Moshe Sherer, long-time head of Agudath Israel, capable of activating an extensive network of Christian allies for common causes.

HAD JEWISH spokesmen been less eager to thrust themselves front and center, plenty of Christian allies could have been found to help blunt the impact of The Passion.

The Catholic Church cannot be terribly enthusiastic about a cinematic presentation of a theology that rejects current papal teaching on the Jews. Indeed, a group of mostly Catholic New Testament scholars, affiliated with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, submitted a study pointing out the departures of Gibson's original script from the Gospels and from papal teaching, as well as the "lurid details" imported from the ecstatic visions of an 18th-century German nun.

Catholic scholars are aware of the numerous contradictions between the four Gospels. They acknowledge that the different human authors wrote in a particular historical context that made it necessary to deliberately downplay the Roman agenda for Jesus's execution. Coming from Catholics, such comments may have some positive impact without any of the inevitable negatives when Shmuley Boteach says the same thing.

While evangelical Protestants will have little truck with such historical analysis of New Testament texts, they tend to overwhelmingly be philo-Semites and, unlike the Catholic Church, continue to view Jews as the Chosen People. With them, the proper approach is that adopted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center: an open appeal to Christians of goodwill to do for Jews what we cannot do for ourselves - i.e., work to ensure that The Passion does not become a vehicle for arousing anti-Semitic furies.

The Wiesenthal Center's "Appeal to People of Faith" expressly eschews any request that Christians renounce or censor their most holy texts. It places the focus on actions, not beliefs. And that is as it should be.

Believing Jews have no interest in dictating others' theology or demanding that they reject their most sacred texts. (One more reason for religious Jews to avoid a frontal confrontation with Mel Gibson.) All religion suffers when any religion is subjected to the strictures of modern-day political correctness. Already on many university campuses, it is a "hate crime," punishable by expulsion, to express the biblical abhorrence of homosexual acts.

Religion is drained of all its power and majesty when its adherents witness its sacred texts and thousands of years of exegesis adjusted in accord with the demands of the local thought police. Recently, I was asked by a BBC moderator of a discussion of the Women of the Wall: "But don't you think that a religion must update in accord with the times?"

"Not unless it wishes to be as irrelevant to the lives of believers as the modern Church of England," I replied.

[Bobby777]

With them, the proper approach is that adopted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center: an open appeal to Christians of goodwill to do for Jews what we cannot do for ourselves - i.e., work to ensure that The Passion does not become a vehicle for arousing anti-Semitic furies.

agreed ... Abe Foxman of the ADL should be more worried about these passages from the koran ...

The Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

The Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The (Final) Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

The Hadith Volume 2, Book 26, Number 595:
Narrated 'Aisha:

(the mother of the faithful believers) I said, "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed." The Prophet said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj Mabrur. "

The Hadith Volume 2, Book 26, Number 594:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet was asked, "Which is the best deed?" He said, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle." He was then asked, "Which is the next (in goodness)?" He said, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." He was then asked, "Which is the next?" He said, "To perform Hajj-Mabrur. "

[lainde]

bttt

[Qwinn]

It only "rejects current papal teaching on the Jews" if you think that the film is anti-Semitic. It isn't, therefore it doesn't. This is typical of liberal hyperbole, building one false thesis on top of another.

Qwinn

[Bobby777]

correction ... those passages are not from the koran, they are from the ha'dith ... typo ...

[HiTech RedNeck]

The only conundrum between the gospels worthy of serious pondering is when was Passover (Friday or Saturday). It's not totally clear.

[Burkeman1]

Having viewed the film I find nothing anti semetic in it. However- I wish Gibson had not included the non Gospels character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, as a sympathaizer of Christ. Pilate is presented as being far more culpalble in tradiotinal Catholic recitations of The Passion. The character of Claudia is a later Catholic story coming from popular middle age mystics. So is the scene in which Christ is shown punched off the bridge by temple guards and then hauled back up. Not trying to offend believers in these Catholic mystics but I think He should have kept the film totally within the Gospels themselves. Other than those two deviations the film is a masterpiece.

The only other slight criticism I have is that the scourging of Christ scene goes on a bit longer than necessary. The actual crucifixction in the film looks merciful in comparison.

[Libertina]

Christian allies could have been found to help blunt the impact of The Passion
Why would we want to "blunt" impact of the passion?

[dinok]

I have seen the film twice and I am now convinced that those who say it is antisemitic have either not seen it or are using it for their own political agendas.

First of all, with the exception of the Romans in the film all the other characters are Jews. Yes...Jews. There were no Christians then. Jesus was a Jew, betrayed by Jews that collaborated with the Romans. Why would any self respecting Jew identify with the human garbage who where asking for a fellow Jew's death at the hands of their Roman enslavers is beyond me.

Look, I know Europeans have and still do harbor antisemitic feelings, but those days if they ever existed in the US are hardly existent now in the Christian community. American Conservative Christians are the biggest supporters of Israel. The people who hate Jews in the US are Black Muslims who side with the Arabs and the left wing press. The same people in the press who are worried about violence against Jews because of this film ignore the murders of Jews by Arabs and become catatonic if a Palestinian brakes a nail.

I'll prove it to you. The last attack by the Israeli Airforce in Gaza has been reported over and over. But the murder by Palestinian terrorists of a young Israeli couple never made it in the news. (I only know of it because I surf Israeli web sites.)

You'll be surprised that the majority of American audiences of the Passion are also supporters of Israel.

[mass55th]

The other morning on Fox News, they had a Priest and a Rabbi talking about the movie. The Rabbi brought up the hooked noses on all the Jews in the film. That complaint must have been on the talking points memo for those who are anti-Mel's film because I've heard it repeated several times. I haven't seen the film yet, but correct me if I'm wrong...weren't most of the extras in the movie Italian?

Similarly, the Rabbi complained that the Jews in the film were dressed in dark clothing, which added to the negativity of the Jews portrayed in the film. He couldn't understand why they (the Jews) couldn't have been dressed in brighter clothing like the Romans. This totally blew my mind. Anyone with a sense of history knows that colored fabric back in those days was limited to those that could afford it. Most people wore clothing spun from the wool of the sheep, which meant that the colors were drab and sometimes dark (from black sheep). I couldn't understand how a Rabbi, who was supposed to be educated, didn't take any of this into consideration prior to making his comments.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"what the film shows that contradicts the pope"

You will probably like the answer from Quinn better, because it gets to the point. However, if you want the argument disected:

1. Hutton and Mel Gibson are among many Catholics who have concerns about Vatican II. Mostly it is about the implementation, not the doctrine -- e.g. Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Varican dept of doctrine. Some go far enough to belong to a Catholic group that still uses the 1962 Latin mass, and aren't in full communion with the Pope. That said, they are strictly orthodox followers of traditional Catholic doctrine. And Vatican II didn't change doctrine.

2. Vatican II emphasized that the Jews at the time and now are not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. The critics use this part of the Vatican II teaching to hang Mel with; implying, he is not in accord with Vatican II ergo he rejects the Pope's statement about the Jews not being collectively guilty, ergo he is an anti-Semite, and so is the movie. There.

3. But, that is not a new teaching. As far back as the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism (1500s) states that Christians are more responsible than Jews for the sufferings of Christ. It makes sense that Vatican II reemphasized and further distanced Christianity from blaming "the Jews" since it was only a few years after the Holocaust.

Basically, it is a series of non-sequiters to prove Mel is an anti-Semite, and to clothe it with the authority of the Pope!

[mass55th]

"Didn't Mel Gibson's decpiction of Herod's court bear an uncanny resemblance to the Clinton Whitehouse?"

I think that scene was represented in "Jesus Christ Superstar." Herod's court in that film could have been Bubba's Whitehouse...with Bill playing the piano, or maybe even Hugh Rodham tinkling the ivories.

[mass55th]

And de tar baby, he say nuttin'

[Burkeman1]

Although the Gospels don't get into detail about Herod's court- History says he was a degenerate hedonist and a Romanzied lacky of Ceaser.

[TheDon]

"As Melanie Phillips astutely observes, the more Jews complain about anti-Semitism, the greater the anti-Semitism."

Great line.

[teresat]

It all gets back to what Jesus said "What is the truth?". The truth to one group of people might be different to another...I watched "Schindlers List" and was moved I watched this movie now twice and was moved...what's the truth?

[ontos-on]

Please add me to the ping list. Thanks.

[TheDon]

"I have seen the film twice and I am now convinced that those who say it is antisemitic have either not seen it or are using it for their own political agendas."

I agree. Have not seen it, being the most likely case.

Did you notice several priests arguing with the High Priest that Jesus was innocent, and asking where are the rest of the Priests, and the witnesses are all liars. The supporters of the High Priest railed on them, struck them, and threw them out.

The movie quite carefully narrows down those wanting Jesus executed to the High Priest and his supporters, that's it. The movie spent quite a bit of time with one woman who tried to give water to Jesus as he carried His cross. There were also many along the road who were against the execution. And of course the man who was pressed into helping Jesus carry the cross.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Can any Catholics help clear up exactly what the film shows that contradicts the pope?"

I saw the film last night and there is nothing in it which contradicts any recent papal pronouncements on the Jews or on scripture. I don't have any idea what the author is referring to when he makes that claim. Almost everyhing in the movie is taken straight from the Bible, except a few flashbacks to Jesus' childhood and pre-ministry years which are intended to flesh-out his relationship with his mother. There is also a scene in which a woman wipes Jesus' face with a cloth as a he stumbles carrying the cross, and I think this refers to a Catholic legend about a woman named Veronica; I don't think that incident comes from the Bible. But, again, nothing in any of these embellishments contradicts Catholic teaching or anything the Pope has said.

[PatL]

>>Since when have American Christians --- in more than two hundred years --- rushed out and gone howling through the streets of a 'Jewish quarter' (there aren't any in America) burning and killing? >>

Well, there was that riot in Crown Heights, NY, but they weren't right wing Christians.

To be fair, it was common in 19th century, for Russian priests to lead attacks on Jews around Easter time. Some don't realize that that was a different place and time.

Now the only religious group interested in killing Jews are the Islamic fundamentalists.

[Steve_Seattle]

Somebody needs to tell the Rabbi that the movie isn't about him; someone might also ask him if the play "The Deputy" is intended, or likely to cause, anti-Catholic sentiments, or whether Jews ever try to blame present-day Christians for the anti-Jewish behavior of Christians in the past. Someone might also ask the Rabbi if the Jewish prayer service did not, for centuries, contain an anti-Christian curse (it did, and in some congregations, still does).