I’m sorry, I’m a little bit blasted right now but Mel Gibson’s a tosser anywhoo, so that this movie is a pile of steaming shit is given.
Moderator’s Note: MC Master of Ceremonies, knock it off. If you’re “a little bit blasted”, go do something else. You’re still responsible for whatever you post here, whether you’re stone sober, a little bit tipsy, or think that every post on the boards is a “double post”.
To try to get back on track…
When I first read that the ADL was calling Gibson’s movie antisemitic, I was upset. Knowing a bit about Hutton, I jumped to the conclusion that Mel was trying to win one for the old man. That might still be the case, but I was a bit hasty, so I’ll wait for the movie. I don’t think I reacted so much at the possible effects of the movie; I think I was more just disappointed with Gibson. It was much like I felt when the ex Cat Stevens failed to repudiate the fatwah against Rushdie. Again, though, I was jumping to conclusions. I can’t say Gibson has given me much cause to think he’s irresponsible, except perhaps for taking that role in “Signs.”
Meanwhile, I’ve come to think that the ADL should have let this one go. I seriously doubt that even a blatantly antisemitic movie would have much effect on anyone in the U.S. If we could survive Henry Ford in a much more bigoted time, a subtitled movie shouldn’t be too dangerous.
I can’t think of an instance of antisemitism which endangered more than a handful of Jews that wasn’t somehow government sponsored (and I would consider the Vatican at the time of the crusades a government). I don’t think show business has much of an effect, except as a propaganda instrument to support the prevailing political climate.
Yes, I’m sorry MEBuckner, you’re are perfectly correct ; I should not of posted those last two posts.
Actually, according to Jewish doctrine, the crucifixion proves that Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. the Jewish Messiah is not a martyr, nor a spiritual saviour, nor God. If a presumptive Messiah is killed before he accomplishes the things that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish (which Jesus did not according to Jewish expectations) then he can’t be the Messiah.
BTW, I doubt most of us would be Jews. We’d probably be following some descendant variation of European paganism (elements of which are actually present in Christianity) or possibly Islam. Judaism is not an evangelistic religion and there is no reason to believe that Europe would have adopted it as it did with Christianity.
Hmm, I did not know that! I learned my one thing for the day. Thanks. 
I can understand that there is a wide gulf between the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ final days and the historical record of the time. What I can’t figure out is why that is the slightest bit relevant to the issue at hand.
My understanding is that Gibson is trying to make a film that is faithful to the Gospel accounts, contrary historical evidence be damned. And the charge of anti-semitism seems entirely premised on the fact that Gibson’s film follows those accounts very closely.
Thus, the ADL and other critics of the film are of necessity not only saying that the film is anti-semitic, but also that the Gospels themselves are anti-semitic. That, of course, is not something the ADL is willing to say openly, but it does appear to be a logical consequence of their position on this film.
Many churches have readings of the passion story around Easter, including the priests’ dealings with Pilate and the mob choosing Barrabas over Jesus. Does the ADL consider them to be riling up anti-semitism?
I think that’s exactly it. And not only the ADL, but the various Christian groups speaking out against the film. I guess it’s hip these days for Christian scholars to say the Bible is mostly myth and not actual historical accounts.
By the way, what historical evidence exists that runs contrary to the gospels. Is it a trustworthy source?
It’s a bit of an over-extension, to say that critics are saying the Gospels are anti-semitic. They are critical of certain factions within Judaism at the time, and against the temple priesthood, who were corrupt puppets of the Romans. But it would take an astoundingly ignorant person to not know that ALL the major players except Pilate are Jews.
If one puts it in the form of a syllogism, you get
- All literature in any way critical of Jews is antisemitic
- The Gospels are critical of aspects of Judaism and Jewish life
- The Gospels are antisemitic
The weak point is the first premise. Ever read Ha’aretz or the Jerusalem Post?
I don’t think there are any sources that run entirely contrary to the Gospels with respect to the general political climate at the time. At least, they don’t disagree with the Gospels any more than the Gospels disagree amongst themselves. Certain parts are considered ahistorical, particularly those surrounding the nativity. And almost anything can be considered questionable, depending on one’s point of view. But direct refutation of the events we’re concerned with would be hard to come by. The Gospels are THE surviving source.