Anti-Semitism and Mel Gibson's New Movie

Great Debates
1

The movie has not been released, thus I have not seen it. But the controversy is worth discussion.

Many Jewish groups are crying “anti-semitism,” as it depicts the Jews as being Jesus’s Killer. Well, some Jews are to blame, if the story is true to history. An angry mob of radical Jews called for his execution, and did it, with the help of some Romans. Yet an angry mob of one faith is not the spokesmen for the whole faith. Most Jews of the time likely had no dog in the fight, being more concerned with taking care of their family, and managing their daily lives. Many Jews likely had sympathy for Jesus.

To me, the one most to blame for Jesus’s death is Pontius Pilate. He realized the injustice of the mob’s intention. He realized that Jesus had committed no crime worth execution. He was in a position to spare his life, yet he did not.

I think the main reason for the cries of Anti-semitism are because of Mel Gibson’s religious affiliation. His nutty dad is not helping either.

What do y’all think?

2

Oh, lets see.

Some groups want to make this movie a “kill-Jews” screed

Some say it’s non-political.

Some say it proves Jews killed Jesus

Some say it shows the politics of 2000 years ago, before the SDMB gave the opportunity for pot-shots.
I’d say wait for the movie to actually be released, watch it, then post here.

Just a suggestion, wait till you see it. There is a lot of speculation on this film.

Side note, I know the film is/has and will be blamed for Anti-Semitism, but we’re talking about Roman politicians. Mel Gibson is responsible for racism against Jews? Why is Italy given a pass for the film? (yes, I’ve seen it) I have to assume Italians aren’t anti-Semites, and the majority would disagree with Hitler. But they did agree with Mussolini. Even though it was against the majority.
My screed is to anyone bashing this film. My only retort is watch it first. I just can’t explain why anyone would dismiss it out of hand. Even Christian-haters will see the reason why Christians follow Christ. For 30 years (since I was born) I spent every Easter and Christmas in Church (as well as regular services).

To define the sermon the Priest would go through the 12 “stages” of the Passion.

NO mention of Jews, Arabs, etc. It was always the Roman Senate and the Ceasar.

When Christ was killed (and most here know I’m Catholic) it was mainly political.

Rambling, granted. Here’s the crux.

  1. Christ was killed because he threatened the powers-that-were

  2. being Christ, there were no Christians to defend him. They came later, by default.

Now, I open myself to Pitting.

3

Road Rash\

Forgot to say my reply wasn’t directed at you. just wanted to get the first reply in to try to keep it civil

4

The way jews cry anti semitism for just about anything I wouldn’t give the issue much concern… and historically the jews did have some part in killing jesus… but that was 2004 years ago (or 2010 according to some)… so who cares. I would suppose the current jews have other sins to care about. Does anyone think we should complain with current Romans for killing Christ ?

5

That’s because you’ve only been going to church for 30 years. From the pre-Vatican II Catholic Good Friday liturgy:

6

I long since lost any understanding of what “anti-Semitism” mean; seems to go from being against an Ariel Sharon policy to throwing people in ovens, and any cause it suits in between.

What is it in this context, what exactly is the accusation . . . ‘anti’ = against what ? Against Jews per se becasue they’re Jews ?

7

I am not a bible historian, but wasn’t it Pontius Pilate’s responsability to keep the peace in that area of the world?

Jesus was viewed by the Jews as an upstart. He was a trouble maker who threatened their beleifs. Pilate had no real choice, he didn’t want any toruble, and the least amount of trouble could be had by executing Jesus.

8

No more than it was the responsibility of the good samaritan to provide aid, as well noted in one of Jesus’s parables. Who knows if there really was a Pontius Pilate, or if the story is historically accurate. It does not matter that it wasn’t his responsibility. Jesus was brought before him. That act made it his responsibility. He was in a position of a moral dilemna, and chose not to act.

This is a recurring theme in the Bible.

9

There was a Pontius Pilate, according to records, I believe. But, the historic one was recalled to Rome and forced into retirement due to excessive violence or something along those lines. In short, he was a bad governor.

10

There is no record, however, of the trial of Jesus or the existence of Barabas other than in the Gospels.

Haj

11

The Biblical accounts of Jesus’ last days are pretty clear: Neither Herod, the Romans (Pilate, et al.), nor the Sanhedrin (Caiphas et al.) seemed to take too kindly to Jesus going around calling himself “king”, and calling the Jewish authorities a bunch of hypocrites. The story says clearly the Jewish higher-ups wanted him dead, sent him to Pilate (who had the vested power to render him dead), and an angry mob of Jews forced Pilate’s to hand him over, after he “washes his hands” of responsibility. Pilate at one point even goes so far as to say Jesus seems a swell guy as far as he’s concerned, and a good beating is all he really needs; but the bloodthirsty mob cries in unison “Crucify him! May his blood be on us and our children!” (paraphrasing only very slightly). And to the cross went.

The story as written isn’t just antisemitic, it’s determinably so. Pilate was not a popular guy with the Jews. He was known as corrumpt and brutal, and had little concern for their cultural sensibilities. At one point he smuggled effigees of Caeser into Jerusalem (seen as idolatrous), which outraged the populace. He once raided the Temple coffers to build an aqueduct. He had to deal with, and sometimes capitulate to, angry mobs on more than one occasion due to his conduct, and was eventually removed by Vitellius (shortly after the alleged date of Jesus’ crucifixion) because of his deficits. Given his general contempt towards his subjects, its difficult to see how Pilate would have needed much convincing to execute a Jewish rabble-rouser like Jesus, and the whole thing about Barabbas strikes many historians as throughly inauthentic. It’s probably safest to say that Caiaphas saw Jesus as little more than a troublesome dissident, and sent him off to Pilate as a matter of course. Pilate was likely only too happy to oblige, given he had left Caiaphas in office for ten years (unlike his predecessor Gratus, who has swapped the High Priest position four times over roughly the same duration); they apparently had a good relationship. At any rate, Pilate had no qualms about brutally suppressing the Samaritan Uprising, and it is partly for this harsh response that Vitellius had him removed.

Given the above, the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ execution rather strain credibility. More likely, some historians argue, the evangelists felt the need to shift blame from Roman authorities for the very pragmatic reason that Christians in the first century were regarded as vermin, and any hint of sedition would be met with extermination. the Jewish authorities (and, by extension, those Jews who were not followers of Jesus), who certainly had their role to play, would have to bear the final burden of responsibility, as the Jews posed a far lesser threat to the survival of Christianity than Caeser did.

The rest, as they say, is history.

I myself can understand Jewish unease with the movie. If it puports to be true to the Gospels, it is antisemitic by default. However, since these stories are an integral part of a 2000 year-old faith, the Passion narriative is read verbatim in Easter services all over the world, Passion plays are performed every year throughout Christiandom, etc., etc., why are they picking on Mel’s movie in particular? If it’s just a retelling (however graphic in its depiction of the Passion and Crucifixion), why is this particular film drawing the ire of the Anti-Defamation League, et al.? I can only guess it’s Mel’s loony-bat dad, and Mel’s belonging to an unregenerate sub-sect of Catholicism that has raised their alarm. Many who are critical haven’t even seen it, so that seems to be the only plausible explanation. Myself, I doubt there will be anything more offensive in the film than in the Gospels themselves. YMMV, of course.

12

Weren’t the Jewish leaders who were so upset with Jesus like the ancient Israel equivalent to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? The Pharisees were kind of like the hypocritical church leaders of today who like to scream and point out what everyone else is doing wrong?

13

Eh, maybe they were and maybe they weren’t.

My problem with opposition to the film is that, well, this story is the central tale of the Christian religion. If you say that this story should not be told, you are in effect saying that Christians cannot be Christians. The Passion IS Christianity. It’s the reason Christianity exists; without this one central story, there’s no faith, no religion.

I understand the trepidation of Jews with respect to Christian intentions, because Christians certainly have a long history of bad intentions towards Jews. But asking Christians to no longer tell the story that explains what Christianity is all about is frankly pretty damned stupid.

14

Whyn’t we we till the film comes out and y’all have seen it?

I’ve heard rumors that the “Jewish Jews” are played by dark-skinned, haggard-looking actors, while the “Christian Jews” all look like Tab Hunter. And that Pilate is played as a big ol’ nellie queen.

But let’s start the requisite 8 million identical threads after the film opens, mmmkay?

15

I agree that it would be hard to make a film version of The Passion of Christ that is true to the Gospels and that doesn’t lay at least some of the “blame” on the Jews of that time.

I think there is particular concern, however, about the use of this line: “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25) in the movie. When taken literally, that blames not only the Jews of the time, but all Jews for all time. If the movie attempts to portray that line as literally true, then I think there is some justification for the concern.

Personally, I’m looking forward to seeing this film, and will reserve judgement one way or the other until after I get to see it.

16

Without getting into whether Gibson’s movie is antisemitic (I’ll reserve judgement on that until I’ve seen it) I feel I should correct some of the OP’s assumptions.

1.) Crucifixion was purely a Roman method of execution, forbidden for Jews. It would have been counter to Jewish law for the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over for crucifixion for any reason.

2.) The trial before the Sanhedrin, as described by Matthew, is almost certainly fiction. It is riddled with factual and procedural innaccuracies, so much so that the story is improbable to the point of absurdity.

3.) Even if the Sanhedrin had wanted to execute Jesus, they could have stoned him. They didn’t need the Romans.

4.) Jesus had committed no crime under Jewish law. He had said or done nothing to warrant a death sentence from the Sanhedrin. The conviction for “blasphemy” described in the gospels could not have occurred since the words that are alleged to be blasphemous were NOT blasphemous under Jewish law.

5.) The gospels were written decades after the crucifixion by people who were not there and who never met Jesus. The Gospel of John, upon which Gibson bases much of his movie, was written about 100 AD and reflects a sectarian polemic by Christian Jews against rabbinic authority. It’s a political document as much as a religious one.

6.) In the wake of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Gospel writers were trying to deemphasize Roman culpability for the crucifixion and the sanhedrin was a handy scapegoat.

7.) In all probablity, Jesus was executed by the Romans as a public nuisance. The impetus for his arrest would have been the disturbance at the temple during Passover. The Romans were ruthless about squelching potential riots before they started, especially during passover when the Romans were greatly outnumbered by the throngs of Jews coming in from the sticks to sacrifice at the temple.

8.) Pontius Pilate was a real person but not much is known about him. There are no official documents for the trial or execution of Jesus. There is no contemporary documentation that he even existed.

9.) Gibsons’ movie may be a faithful rendering of the gospels but the gospels themselves contain some unfair smears and villification of the Sanhedrin.

10.) The Romans killed Jesus. No jew had anything to do with that decision although t’s possible that someJewish collaborators may have facillitated his arrest.

I find this to be a very odd statement. Is the world composed only of Christians and “Christian haters?” Who ARE these “Christian haters?” If they really hate Christians then why should they care why Christians follow Christ?
Do you really think that any NON Christian is not already familiar with the story. What am I, as a non-Christian going to learn about Christianity that I don’t already know. Frankly, showing a man being brutally murdered may be moving and affecting but it doesn’t prove anything or have any special meaning unless you already believe the death was in some way significant.

Not to pick on Duffer but i keep hearing Christians talking about how non-Christians will suddenly “understand” Christianity. I already understand Christianity. I just don’t buy it. I don’t believe that Jesus died for my sins or really for any important reason. He was just one of thousands who were crucified and his suffering is no more important to me than anyone else’s. Dwelling in pornographic detail on the torture does not make the crucifixion any more meaningful.

If you’re a Christian, TPOTC shows a guy suffering for your sins (as llogical as that may be). If you’re not a Christian, it’s just a guy getting murdered.

17

Way to go, Rashak. Way to go.

There are some Jewish activist groups that take it too far (just like some activist groups for any cause), but let’s say that was not the best thought out comment I’ve heard on the subject. Movies should be judged on their own merits, but it’s probably hard for some Jewish people not to consider the way Jews have been historically persecuted for killing Jesus. IF Gibson is intentionally contributing to that, it’s reprehensible. But I can’t say I know that’s what he’s doing.

18

Who killed Jesus?

19

Not a bad thesis, but still flawed. It give the gospels too much credit for historicity (the whole Messianic entry into Jerusalem, for example, is highly unlikely) and does not address the credibility problems with trial before the Sanhedrin.

As I said before, it’s not impossible that Caiaphas facillitated the arrest but the conviction for “blasphemy” is nonsense as is any notion that Jesus execuion had anything to do with angering Jewish authorities, at least on religious grounds.

20

Hmm, could you elaborate on this for me Diogenes? I always though that Jesus’ crime was to call himself the son of god, a blasphemy punishable by death under jewish law at the time. Am I wrong?