April 1, 2004

MEL GIBSON'S PASSION


"Were you there, when they crucified my Lord? . . . . Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble . . ." is an old gospel hymn, which has somehow gone out of favor. But Mel Gibson took us there and produced what I regard as a Rorschach test. Each viewer saw what his preconceptions and conditioning led him to see and the criticisms, which were so vigorously expressed simply prove the point. How else are we to understand a review in The New Yorker which called it, "a sickening, unilluminating, and ignorant show . . . . It's a deeply angry film, and one wonders how believers can react to it with anything but guilt, fear, or loathing." On the other hand a Christian lady, as reported in U.S. News & World Report, felt: "'It's hardly more graphic than the junk many adults allow their kids to see on TV. And this violence', she said, 'has a purpose.'"

The most vociferous protests came from some Jewish intellectuals of the secular as well as religious variety who felt that the film depicts anti-Semitism and would lend fuel to currently increasing anti-Jewish sentiments around the world. But Christian theologians and biblical historians also found fault with the film apart from its excessive violence. They complained that Gibson was loose with the facts because he picked from the four gospels those aspects which suited his aim and thereby violated their historicity. But most of all he neglected to drum into the audience that Jesus was a Jew who suffered his fate because the Romans didn't like Jews and especially Jesus whom they regarded as a rabble rouser. It was also argued that Pilate, a cruel autocrat, was portrayed as wishy-washy, which does not conform to the picture drawn by ancient Jewish historians such as Josephus and Philo.

Although I am not a theologian I did acquaint myself fairly intimately with the Old as well as the New Testament during the years after retirement from professional duties, and I also devoted myself to studying historical sources dealing with Greco-Roman times. This was brought about by my attempt to understand anti-Semitism, to which I had been personally exposed during Nazi times. The first result was War&Mayhem, which gave my version of the events of WWII and why the leaders in the various countries did what they did. Since this personal history conflicts to some extent with what is officially taught in schools and in the media the book failed the publishing test. It was rejected not only by editors of major publishing firms but even agents did not want to expose themselves to unorthodox views. In as much as I felt sufficiently strongly about the topic I went subsequently the print on demand route. At the same time I began working on The Moses Legacy because in my opinion the Second World War would probably not have achieved its world wide dimension and attendant atrocities without the Nazis' persecution of Jews.

These books were written because I do not share the simple minds of others who merely declare anybody they don't like as "evil" and be done with it. As a scientist and student of human behavior I want to know why people do what they do. This included Nazis and why they hated Jews with such vigor. In The Moses Legacy I traced anti-Jewish sentiments from biblical and extra-biblical sources throughout the ages and demonstrated their reasons. But the legacy of Moses did not end with Jews, it led to Christianity and subsequently to the Muslim religion. This puts us squarely into the current Middle East dilemma and our War on Terrorism which cannot be understood without its biblical background. Therefore, while Moses made his rounds to publishers, I began working on the next book "Understanding Jesus," which brings us to Gibson and his film. The Jesus book was finished for preliminary viewing by friends and acquaintances in January of 2003 and I also sent it to a senior editor of a New York publishing firm with whom I had personal contacts. By the middle of last year the Gibson film was already being talked about and I tried to convince the editor that since the movie would be regarded as highly controversial it would be appropriate to publish the book around the time of the film's release because it would then be able to get additional publicity. He thought it over; months went by and when reminded he told me that he needed the advice of one of his colleagues. By early winter the final rejection arrived. Now both Moses and Jesus sat peacefully together in my computer and went nowhere.

Inasmuch as the Jesus book is a sequel, the decision was reached to self-publish Moses first and then partly rework the Jesus book to incorporate some valuable suggestions by friends who had really read the book rather than scanned it. As matters stand now Moses is likely to become available to the public some time in April.

After this preamble which was intended to give my credentials for saying what I am going to say we can now discuss the criticisms leveled against Gibson's film. As has been pointed out by others they are really not so much against Gibson but the gospels and their historical truth. The crux of the problem, and there is no pun intended, is Jesus. He is probably the single most controversial person in human history and in the Introduction to the Jesus book I provided a multiple choice test for the reader. "The word Jesus refers to: A) an expletive when one is angered or distressed. B) a prophet of God. C) a deluded itinerant Galilean preacher and miracle worker. D) a dangerous false prophet. E) the savior of mankind." These choices exist and it is up to the individual which one is subscribed to.

Let us now examine some of the criticisms from the Jewish and the Christian community. The main one from Mr. Foxman's Anti-Defamation League constituency is that "the Jews" are being blamed for Jesus' death. This is regarded as anti-Semitic slander because it was really "the Romans" who did the crucifying. Matthew's verse 27:25 "His blood be on us and our children!" was also found so offensive that Gibson relented and took it out of the final version. Our current religious-political climate demands that Jews are exonerated in Jesus' death, for fear that otherwise anti-Jewish sentiments might be rekindled. In the article entitled: "The Real Jesus. How a Jewish reformer lost his Jewish identity," U.S. News & World Report wrote: "Some say he was the Messiah, some say, a prophet. But Jesus was, indisputably, a Jew." Now that finally settles it!

In The Moses Legacy I have devoted a full chapter to definitions including the ones dealing with the word "Jew." It is, therefore, appropriate to ask: In what sense was Jesus "a Jew?" When one places oneself into first century Palestine there were various national groups which can be listed when going from South to North as: the Idumeans, the Judeans (Jews), the Samaritans, the Galileans and then the Syrians. Although some of these people shared, to varying degrees, the mosaic religious code they were not necessarily "Jews" in the modern sense of the word. Thus, a statement such as, "Jesus was a Galilean who was brought up in a mosaic religious milieu" would have been more appropriate. The "Jews," which were so vigorously condemned, especially in the gospel of John, were the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, or more correctly their religious leadership and mob following. This is why we also read in the pre-resurrection story by John that Jesus' disciples (most of whom, if not all, were Galileans) were afraid of the "Jews." To insist today on Jesus having been foremost a Jew is like saying that Buddha was a Hindu, St. Paul was a Pharisee and Luther was a Catholic. Yes they were, until they saw the abuses of their respective religions, decided to do something about it and moved into a totally different realm.

Those pundits who pride themselves on "historical accuracy" commit, in my opinion, a fundamental intellectual error. To look for historical facts in religious history is futile. There is no history; there are only historians and each one brings his one bias to the topic. Right now we can't even ascertain what our President did or did not know about the impending 9/11 attacks; so how are we going to know what "really happened" 2000 years ago? It can't be done and each historian will take those data that fit a given stereotype, especially when one deals with faith rather than facts.

Let us now agree that in the eyes of the populace on Palm Sunday Jesus was hailed as the Messiah. This meant in Jewish tradition that he was to be a redeemer of all who lived under the law of Moses and establish a Jewish kingdom forever. This was and still is the job of the Messiah! It is obvious that they misjudged Jesus whose "kingdom is not of this earth" and when they found out that he was unwilling to lead a rebellion against Rome, as was expected of the Messiah, they had every reason to be furious. They felt that they had been duped and that he was merely one of many other pretenders to messiahship. Caiphas really had no choice either. For a Galilean to admit that he was the "Son of the Most High" was the ultimate blasphemy, which deserved a death sentence. When the gospels relate that the Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate because in John's words 18:31 "it is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," someone bent the truth. The death penalty did exist in various forms, as discussed in The Moses Legacy, and different methods for different crimes were in place. Blasphemy required stoning as was carried out for instance with Stephen and reported in The Acts of the Apostles.

But let us now put ourselves into that particular Passover week in Jerusalem. How can you stone a blasphemer who has been hailed as the Messiah by the crowd a few days earlier? What options did Caiphas have? If he just arrested Jesus and hid him away somewhere until the holy days had passed he would have had a riot on his hands because the crowd would have wanted to know where their Messiah was. To hand this troublemaker over to the Romans, as a troublemaker, was really the only valid alternative. Jesus became under these circumstances no longer a Jewish but a Roman problem.

Pilate, the procurator, was in town precisely to either avoid or put down a riot by the inflammable mob, wich tended to occur especially around holy days. Pilate's goal in life was simple: to get his tour of duty over with, while fleecing the populace as much as possible and to put down rebellions whenever they occurred. Gibson's portrait of Pilate, which is merely that of the gospels, is not inherently unbelievable when one reads all of Josephus rather than the excerpts we are currently being treated to, which show him as a brutal fore-runner of Saddam Hussein. In Chapter III of Book XVIII of The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus describes in great detail how Pilate backed down when the Jews threatened him with rebellion for having brought Roman ensigns into Jerusalem which had "Caesar's effigies." Pilate relented for religious demands but when it came to health problems such as Jewish protests over financing an aqueduct with temple money he brooked no interference and cut down the mob.

The experts of our day who get quoted in the media about Pilate's villainy also refer to Philo's opinion about that man and it may be useful, therefore, to give a full excerpt of what Philo wrote. It can be found in the chapter "On the Embassy to Gaius." Gaius, better known as Caligula, had intended to have his statue erected in the Jerusalem temple and his friend Agrippa warned him in a long letter that this would inevitably lead to a war with the Jews. In the letter Agrippa told Caligula how previous emperors had dealt with the restless province of Judea. When Pilate violated Jewish religious law by having "dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod in the holy city," the Jewish leadership petitioned him to remove this offense.

"But when he [Pilate] steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplication to your master.

But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor and impeach him . . ."



Although the two historians don't agree on the nature of Pilate's offense both state that he gave in to pressure from the crowd. Thus, when the mob yelled that if Pilate did not condemn Jesus to crucifixion he was "no friend of Caesar," this was indeed the ultimate threat. It was well known that Tiberius was profoundly paranoid by that time and when there was a choice to be made between a poor Galilean's head and his own, it surely was not difficult. What was one more crucifixion anyway?

This little episode brings up another question. I am not a professional Bible historian but if I can unearth these data why don't the professionals who criticize Gibson and the gospels for historical inaccuracy? I believe the answer is simple and deals with our socio-political climate where accuracy has to take a backseat in order to placate a vociferous minority. In addition, only a person who no longer works for money and is not beholden to any institution can freely speak the truth as he sees it when it goes against the prevailing political wind.

It is true that Matthew's verse 27:25 has brought great harm to the Jewish community throughout the ages because it has been interpreted in a literal sense. This is also the reason why we have such difficulty to understand Jesus intellectually, especially as depicted in the gospel of John. Only when we realize that we are dealing with spirit rather than flesh will he come to life for us and then we begin to understand that, while the person Jesus can be killed, the spirit which animated him is immortal and immune to all insults and suffering. To kill Jesus was expedient and everybody had a hand in it but Jesus knew that only by his suffering all insults, and ultimately a cruel death, might mankind be reconciled to God and mend its ways. How did he know? I discussed this in Understanding Jesus in detail but believe that it was a personal decision which grew into a conviction from which there was no return.

Jesus intended to wash away the sins of all generations, past - present- and future with his blood. The idea of the cleansing power of blood was deeply ingrained in the Jewish religion, except that it was animal rather than human blood and limited to Israel's tribes. Exodus 24:8 reports that after reading the words of the covenant: "Moses took the blood [of the slaughtered oxen], and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words." But while Moses thereby sanctified the tribes of Israel, Jesus went further and proclaimed that his blood was shed not merely for one nation but for all nations and all individuals therein. From that point of view we might even hope that the cleansing power of his blood can come upon the children of Jews so that they too will at long last find rest from persecution and persecuting. But for a person to sacrifice himself for another, let alone the rest of the world, was a distinctly un-Jewish thought. Its parallels and antecedents come from the Hellenic and Buddhist world. It is in that world where one also finds the essence of Jesus' teachings.

But what does this mean for us today? Everything! The question for everyone of us is not necessarily Hamlet's, "To be or not to be?" But, "Who am I?" As Kipling has put it in his novel about the Great Game, which is currently being re-enacted again, "Who is - Kim - Kim - Kim?" Who is this that says "I" to itself and what is its purpose? This is the fundamental question of mankind from which it always runs away so diligently. Nevertheless, the question remains, at least for some of us, and keeps nagging until an answer is found. When the answer comes we see the world in a new light. We can then truly say not only with Socrates: "Anytus and Meletus may kill me; they cannot harm me," but also with Jesus: "Father forgive them they know not what they do."

Gibson tried to bring us into contact with ourselves because Jesus did not seek his death merely for the sins of Jews but for the evil which lurks in every one of us. Did Gibson show us too much brutality? Yes; but on the one hand he is Mel Gibson after all and can't jump over his shadow, and on the other hand we do inflict brutality on others on a daily basis. We just don't want to be reminded of everything that is being carried out in our name. Condemning the film because it might provoke anti-Semitism is blinding our eyes to the real causes of anti-Jewish sentiments which sweep this world now and which we fan by our government's blind endorsement of Sharon's policies. These are infinitely more harmful than any film Gibson or anybody else can make.

I believe that The Intermountain Catholic was correct when it suggested that "The Passion of the Christ" should have a sequel called "The Resurrection of Christ." It will be considerably more difficult to produce because to put Spirit on the screen rather than bleeding flesh will require artistry which may not be readily available. In addition Spirit doesn't sell tickets as readily as violence does. Nevertheless, unless we move from flesh to Spirit we have failed in our prime task and Jesus will indeed have been a deluded fool whose suffering was in vain. This is where the multiple choice questions come in again. It may come as a surprise to some readers that the choice "a prophet of God" is the official teaching of the Koran, while that of "a dangerous false prophet" is the firm belief of a group of ultra-orthodox Jews. The followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe also declare unequivocally that Jesus had to be killed according to the Torah which had warned of false prophets. This information is readily available on the Internet at www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm and one wonders why the people who so fervently argue for Jesus' Jewishness do not take note of it. For those who are so eager to make Jesus conform to their image of a Jew it might be better to come to terms with him and live up to his message. This would not require conversion but simply a change in personal conduct. It would make his sacrifice meaningful for everyone and put all enmity to rest for ever.

Jesus showed us the way from a human to a humane society. Looking at the world objectively we must say that so far he has failed. But it is up to us whether or not this failure is permanent. Whether we will continue to nail him and ourselves to the cross or if finally critical mass will be achieved and people will say: no more hate, no more torture, no more killing,. It may take several more hundreds of years or even millennia for this to come to pass but this ought to be our task: to graduate from the human to the humane race.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!