[published on August 4, 2006]
I was furious when I first heard about Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish diatribe; and I said so. For one thing, everything he said made it crystal clear that the charge of some people that his Passion for Christ film was anti-semitic cannot be justified solely by reference to that most anti-semitic of the Biblical Gospels, the Gospel of John.
As I noted before, I did not see The Passion of Christ. Because of a fascination with the shroud of Turin (a fascinating artifact, whatever it is and wherever it came from), I have read a great deal on the subject of Crucifixion and the realities of Roman tortures and execution, up to and including scourging by means of the flagram and the use of the spear for ensuring the death of Crucifixion victims. Having read enough to understand that it was a messy, prolonged, humiliating, and cruel way to die, I had no stomach for seeing a film billed as a "realistic" depiction of Christ's execution.
I therefore am in one sense not in a position to comment on whether it was or was not anti-Semitic. On the other hand, I have read the Gospel of John closely---probably more closely than the others, due to its comparative strangeness and also for the abundance of profuse and often puzzling details. A person who was basing a Biblical story on that Gospel and was sticking closely to that version of events would indeed find it pervasively anti-Semitic.
Before basing a film on this Gospel (or any of the others), such a one would have done well to study some contemporary religious sources in order to understand the historical context of that book. At a certain point in history, the emerging Christian religion would have been wise to distance themselves from the Jewish population from which Christianity arose. Furthermore, a person who took a little time to understand the historical context would realize that Jesus was executed as a subversive by the Romans.
The Jewish leaders turned him over to the Romans because his triumphal ride into the city doubtless made it clear to them that if they did not put a stop to him, the Romans would do so in any case. Furthermore, they would doubtless not stop with Jesus only. His claim to be King of the Jews----which the ride into the city asserted he intended to claim---was a deadly serious one, from the standpoint of the Romans and Herod.
There are always two sides to every story. The gospels adopt a mocking tone when they refer to the Pharisees and their constant questioning of Jesus. According to those accounts, the priests and scribes are constantly trying to trick Jesus into blasphemy.
In reality---and I am not going to cite my sources, being in a lazy mood, so take it for what it's worth--- the priests and scribes may well have simply been attempting to verify Jesus's claim that he was the Messiah. Obviously, Nicodemus ended up believing him, as did certain other wealthy and influential Jews (such as Joseph of Arimathea, the Bethany family, and Mary Magdalene, assuming that she was a different Mary from Mary of Bethany). But some did not believe him. After all, other Jewish men had made that claim in the past, and the Romans had retaliated by crucifying hundreds of Jews.
And Jesus----in the eyes of the Sandhedrin----lacked some of the necessary qualifications to be the Messiah. For one thing, he was from Galilee---a subject that comes up more than once (there's a reason why there's such insistence on the Bethlehem birth story). According to some sources, there was also considerable doubt in his own day about his lineage and his claim to be descended from David.
It's clear that there was a serious division of opinion about Jesus and who he was. Devout Christians will say that the Jews who did not believe should have been able to see. Even so, the followers of Christ were Jews, Christ was a Jew (though hardly, it appears, a conventional one), and without Paul and his seizure and vision on the road to Damascus, Christianity would doubtless have evolved as another branch of Judaism. And Paul was Jewish too; albeit a Jew who could not get on at all with Peter or the head of the Jerusalem Church, Christ's brother James the Just.
Regardless of what you believe about the claims made on behalf of Christ---which really are materially different from the ones he makes on his own behalf in the Gospels---trying to understand the historical context only makes the story more powerful.
At the time I heard about this film, I said that it was a shame that Mel Gibson concentrated so much on the Gospels and gave so little attention to context. I did not wish to see a film that had offended Jewish people in America or to be in any way associated with it, so I can't say more than that.
I didn't conclude from what I heard that he was himself anti-semitic because that is a very serious charge to make against anyone, and frankly, I know enough Christians who couldn't care less about history---e.g., "The King James Bible is the true word of God!"---that I just assumed that the alleged anti-Semitic tone resulted from the failure to try to understand the events that led up to the execution of Christ.
It's a little hard to go on thinking this after hearing the things he said the other night. And if ever there were a bad time to start blaming the Jews for "all wars", it was then. And timing or no timing, what he said was disgusting on its own merits. My first response----as always, because who ever really pays attention to all that tedious stuff Jesus said about judging others?----was to condemn him.
Then I read his recent extended (and rather blubbering) apology, and pity started having its insidious way with me. That statement infuriated Nick, who simply deemed Mel Gibson "vile and pathetic," and refused to feel anything for him but contempt.
But I feel very sorry for Mel Gibson. I also think it was a very good thing that he said what he did, since it has forced him to confront---and will force him to go on confronting---this ugly stain on his soul. It's not one that can be washed away with a few Hail Marys; to regain any credibility, he is going to have to make very public restitution of some kind or another and is going to have to convince the Jewish community that he has changed his whole way of thinking. A gallon of Clorox won't wash him clean without that and maybe nothing will. Jesus may forgive him but some people (and I reckon Nick is one of them) never will.
Vynette, who kindly commented on my initial note, wrote:
[quote begins]
Are Mel's comments so surprising though? As a product of a convent upbringing, I feel qualfied to offer an opinion. Think of being born into a religion, practised perhaps by countless generations of your ancestors, that did not officially absolve the Jews of the 'murder of Jesus' until 1965. It's an awful long time since the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD declared the Jews to be perfidious Christ-killers, people to be avoided, converted, or persecuted. Let's see now...1640 years! In Mel's case, perhaps it's a sort of 'mother's milk' thing.
[quote ends]
I wrote back to her privately and said that yes, I was surprised. I realize that Catholics receive more literal training in religion than Protestants, but most of the Catholics I know are not anti-Semitic in the least (if anything, they are mildly anti-Catholic). Furthermore, as her very interesting blog ("The race is run; Theology, Theocracy, and Religion") reveals, this writer has overcome any traces of such feeling that her religious upbringing might otherwise have instilled in her.
Even so, she has a point. Much religious training (at least in my and Mel's day) consisted in the instillation of certain beliefs; questions and reservations were not permitted or entertained; and in fact, it was an exercise in hard-wiring people to believe certain ideas as "facts," without much regard to context or truth. (Thank God I grew up Episcopalian).
My grandmother (born in 1899) was kind to everyone she met, including Jewish people and Catholics, but she privately believed that the Holocaust was God's judgment on them. She didn't think they deserved it or anything, but the God she believed in was the Old Testament God who---as Mark Twain observed (and I am paraphrasing here too)---was given to frequent murderous rages, spiteful retaliations, and jealous rantings. She was all, "Yes, it's a terrible, tragic thing; but they know what he's like. If only they'd accepted Jesus," as if plenty of converted Jews weren't rounded up with the rest. (She reckoned Catholics would go to Hell for worshipping graven images.)
So from personal experience I know that anti-Semitism and racism aren't stains that we're born with; they are secondary sins, and the direct consequence of doing what Jesus so often warned people they were not to do: a judgment of the worth of another human being in the eyes of God.
So---as a follower of the Gospels, if not much else in the Bible---I'm going to retract my judgment of Mel G. and see whether he can make the promised change. Through the psychobabble that so enraged and bored and disgusted Nick, and whether it was penned by Mel Gibson or his publicist, I detected the authentic note of desperation. Good. That's the first step on the road to redemption.
I'm waiting to see what he does to make up for it. I can see good coming out of the incident---if not for Mel then for the rest of us---since it illustrates for people who need an incentive to do right that harboring such thoughts, however secretly, can only lead to grief.
I'm always all about the redemption, you know? Which is why, I suppose, I was drawn back at last to Christianity.
Comments