"THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST"
IS THE MOVIE ANTI-SEMITIC?
Sponsored link.
About the Bible text:
One of the main sources of the screenplay,
the Bible, certainly contains many anti-Judaic
elements -- i.e. passages which portray some Jews in Jerusalem in about
the year 30 CE in a negative light. But beliefs differ
about the content and meaning of Bible passages:
 |
Most conservative Christians generally believe that the Bible is
inerrant and that its bloodthirsty depiction
of Jews in first century CE Palestine is accurate. If this is
true, even though the movie is severely critical of the actions of some
Jews at the time, its portrayal is truthful and cannot be regarded as
hate literature. | |
Many religious liberals and secularists generally believe that much
of the description of Yeshua of Nazareth's (Jesus Christ's) arrest, trial, and execution
consists of religious propaganda, inaccurate reporting, and events that
never happened. For example:
 |
Robert Price comments: "The crucifixion account of Mark, the
basis for all the others, is simply a tacit rewrite of Psalm 22,
with a few other texts [from the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament]
thrown in." 1 |
|
Joe Nickell writes: "Jesus' exclamation -- 'My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?' -- comes verbatim from Psalm 22; also
from the Psalm are the piercing of the hands and the feet, the
casting of lots for the garments and other story motifs."
2 |
If the liberal position is true, then the Bible portrayal of the passion
of Yeshua can be criticized as possibly being inaccurate
and anti-Judaic.
Many portions of the movie accurately replicate the Gospel story. If
there are any parts of the biblical story that are hate propaganda, one can
accuse the movie itself of being equally biased. |
About Catherine Emmerich's visions:
The diaries which describe the visions of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824)
provided much of the content of the screenplay.
These visions were collected
into book form by a noted German writer of the time, Brentano. The book,
'The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ'," is currently in print and
is also available on the Internet 3,4 Emmerich was an Augustinian nun who lived in Germany
who has been accused of having been anti-semitic. Author Joe Nickell writes:
"Although at times Emmerick simply speaks of Jesus 'malicious and cruel
enemies' (122), at other times, whether intentionally or not, she appears to
malign an entire people. She refers to 'the cruel Jews,' (101, 106,115), and
other disparagements -- reflected in Gibson's The Passion in the sinister
countenances and action of Caiaphas's followers." 2
Rev. C. E. Schmoeger wrote a biography of biography of Emmerich in 1976.
In an apparent reference to the blood libel hoax, Emmerich described one vision
of an "old Jewess Meyr" who admitted "that Jews in our country and
elsewhere strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of
suspicious and diabolical practices." 5
The writings of a second anti-semitic nun, Mary of Agreda, were allegedly
used to add ot the screen play. She wrot, in reference to Jews: "Although
they did not die, they were chastised with intense pain. These disorders
consequently upon shedding the blood of Christ, descended to their posterity and
even to this day continue to afflict this group with horrible impurities."
Father Michael Cooper, director of the Center for Catholic-Jewish Studies
at St. Leo University in Florida said: "Such attitudes had a direct
influence on modern anti-Semitism and even on the Holocaust."
5
About movie scenes added to the Biblical
account:
There are a number of scenes which do not appear in the Bible
but which seem to be fictional creations added to flesh out the movie. This
was a necessary task, because a blending of the Gospel accounts of Yeshua's arrest, trial(s), flogging and execution would only provide material for perhaps a
half-hour movie. Some additional scenes had to be created to extend the film
to a feature length. Some viewers viewers
will interpret the following scenes as containing significant anti-semitic
material:
|
Yeshua is repeatedly beaten by the Temple
guard after his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane for no apparent
reason. |
|
Pontius Pilate, the Procurator of Judea, is
consistently portrayed as a weak-willed governor, frightened of the power of
the Jewish priests, and lacking in confidence. In reality, he was harsh and vicious in his treatment of
Jews. He had thousands of them crucified. "Philo, writing at the
time, said that Pilate was calculating, cruel and brutal. He probably had a
typical Roman's disdain for any other culture, thinking the Jews not nearly
as civilized as the Romans." 6 He was later recalled to Rome to be tried for his brutal treatment of
Jews. 6,7 |
|
In one scene, Judas is emotionally
distraught at his prior betrayal of Yeshua. He is tormented by some Jewish
children whose faces morph into demons. |
A key event in the Bible that
is missing in the movie:
There are two crucial passages in John 11
and 18 which appear to show the mind set of the Chief Priest Caiaphas
concerning the fate of Yeshua.
|
In the first passage, word had spread about
Yeshua having raised Lazarus from the dead. The chief priests and Pharisees called
a council to decide what to do. |
|
The passage reads: John 11:48-57: "If
we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall
come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named
Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know
nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." |
|
The Interpreter's One-volume Commentary in
the Bible 8 states that: "This counsel of the high priest Caiaphas is
crucial. It is a decision made in hatred, fear and expediency. By
sacrificing an innocent man, however much disliked by them, the council
reckons that it can save its own position and prestige -- indeed can save
the whole country from war and destruction. The people, or at least all too
many of them, believe this man Jesus to be the Messiah. This means war with
the Romans." Jews in Palestine during the 1st Century
CE, expected a Messiah who was a political-military-religious leader
who would bring liberation from the Roman Empire through conflict. Caiaphas reasoned that it
would be better to have one man, Yeshua, killed rather than risk having the
Romans remove the priests from power and destroying the entire country. The
chief priest's decision appears to be motivated more by by love and concern for
his fellow Jews and for his own power, than by any hatred of Yeshua. |
|
The second passage, John 18:14, relates the
events when the temple guards brought Yeshua before Annas and Caiaphas. The
latter repeats his earlier statement: "Now Caiaphas was he, which gave
counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the
[Jewish] people." |
|
If one or both of Caiaphas' statements had
been included in the movie, the viewers might have understood that the chief
priest was willing to see Yeshua die rather than risk a war which would
destroy the Jewish nation. Without these statements, the viewer will
probably conclude that Caiaphas was motivated by hatred and envy of Yeshua. |
|
Movie critic Roger Ebert commented in his review of The Passion of
the Christ: "The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of
the film, writes: 'The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in
which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people
[so] that the nation be saved. Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving
Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have
underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse
the issue of anti-Semitism'." 10 |
This essay continues below.
Sponsored link:
Possible changes to the movie to minimize
incitement of anti-semitism:
Through most of the history of
Christianity, Christian Churches taught that all "the Jews" --
whether they lived in the 1st century or 20th century or sometime in between
-- were responsible for Yeshua's death. This belief is no longer current. The
Roman Catholic Church, for example, abandoned this position in the mid
1960's. However, with thousands of years of tradition behind it, one might
expect that the belief is still circulating among part of the public. It
rises to the surface regularly like a bloated corpse. Gibson
could have displayed a pro-active disclaimer, as Cecil B DeMille did in his epic
movie, "King of Kings," that would state directly that the
Jewish people are not
responsible for Yeshua's death.
Mel Gibson did make one significant change to the
movie before it was released to the public. Matthew 27:25 describes the Jewish
mob pressuring Procurator Pilate to crucify Yeshua. Matthew, and Gibson, has the
mob say: "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on
our children." This one verse is probably responsible for more
murders of innocent people than any other in the Bible. A. James Rudin, senior
inter-religious adviser for the American Jewish Committee writes: "That
curse appears only in Matthew, and is the religious taproot for the horrific
charge that because the Jews killed Jesus, they merited eternal divine
punishment for their 'crime.' Once an integral part of the world-famous
Oberammergau Passion Play in Germany, all references to Matthew 27:25 were
removed from the 2000 production and will not appear in future performances. It
is ironic that Oberammergau, the 'grandparent' of Passion plays, no longer
contains the incendiary verse from Matthew, but it does appear in Gibson's
version." 7 The statement from Matthew
gave theological justification to the charge of deicide -- the belief that the entire
Jewish people were and continue to be responsible for the murder of God. Like other
statements by actors portraying Jews in the movie, the line was spoken in Aramaic.
Gibson had the English sub-title removed, so that only those viewers who were
familiar with Aramaic would be able to understand the statement.
Comments by the Anti-Defamation League®
(ADL):
Representatives of the ADL attended a private screening of a pre-release
version of The Passion of the Christ on 2003-AUG. They "voiced
concerns that the film, if released in its present form, 'could fuel hatred,
bigotry and anti-Semitism' by reinforcing the notion of collective Jewish guilt
for the death of Jesus." Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said: "The
film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones
responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus. We are deeply concerned that the
film, if released in its present form, could fuel the hatred, bigotry and
anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."
In a press release of 2003-AUG-11, ADL's expressed concern that:
|
"The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish 'mob' as forcing
the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for
the crucifixion." |
|
"The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as
blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion
and humanity." |
|
"The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction
of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate." |
|
"The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical
anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively
citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is
hostile to Jews and Judaism." |
|
"The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies
of God and the locus of evil." 9 |
References:
-
Robert Price, "The incredible shrinking Son of Man: How reliable is
the Gospel tradition?," Prometheus Books, (2003).
Read
reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
-
Joe Nickell, " 'Visions' behind the Passion," Skeptical Inquirer,
2004-May/June, Pages 11 to 13.
-
Anne Emmerich, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Tan
Books, (Reprinted 1994).
Read
reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
-
Anne Emmerich, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,"
online at:
http://www.emmerich1.com/
-
Joe Berkofsky, " 'Passions' Rise Over Gibson Film," Jewish Life,
2003-JUN-25, at:
http://www.jewishportland.org/
-
"Who killed Jesus?" BBC, at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
-
A. James Rudin, "A Jewish View of Gibson's 'Passion.' The film may
transmit negative attitudes, stereotypes and caricatures about Jews."
Beliefnet, 2004, at:
http://www.beliefnet.com
-
C.M. Layton, "The Interpreter's One-volume Commentary on the Bible,"
Abingdon Press, (1971), Page 720.
Read
reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
-
"ADL Concerned Mel Gibson's 'Passion' Could Fuel Anti-Semitism if
Released in Present Form," Anti-Defamation League, 2003-AUG-11, at:
http://www.adl.org/
-
Roger Ebert, "The Passion of the Christ," 2004-FEB-24, at:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/
Copyright © 2004 & 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2004-MAY-21
Latest update: 2005-MAY-07
Author: B.A. Robinson 
| |
Page Translator:
