this woman’s work

There’s an article about Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion. The movie is a literal interpretation of the gospels and as such has been a target for criticism from interfaith groups and the Anti-Defamation League. Their argument is that the movie is anti-Semitic because its literal take on the gospels makes the Jews out to be bad guys.

Sometime around the year A.D. 30, in the Roman province of Palestine, an obscure Jewish carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth began to teach publicly and to proclaim the coming of a ‘Kingdom of God.’ For centuries, the Jewish people had expected the appearance of a promised deliverer known as the Messiah –a figure who would restore their ancient dignity, and free their sacred homeland from all evil and despair. In the minds of many, Jesus appeared to be this Messiah. Surrounded by a core group of twelve disciples, Jesus began to attract a massive following from among the common people of Galilee and Judea, who eventually praised him as their Messiah and King. However, Jesus also had many enemies in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrin, a governing senate composed of the leading Jewish priests and Pharisees, conspired to put Jesus to death.
 
With the aid of Judas Iscariot, a member of Jesus’ own inner circle, the Sanhedrin succeeded in arresting Jesus, handing him over to the Roman secular authorities on unsubstantiated charges of treason against Rome. Although Jesus consistently maintained that his Kingdom was a heavenly and spiritual one, the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, faced with the possibility of a riot, ordered that Jesus be taken outside the city and crucified as a common criminal.

That’s from the movie’s web site.

This is a tough one for me. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe that fundamentalist Christian and Catholics have a right to their point of view. But their belief that the New Testament is the inerrant word of God is really disturbing, especially because the Gospels pretty clearly condemn the Jews. If you believe that the bible is absolute then there’s no argument with that: it has the Jews saying, “His blood be on us and on our children!” and if you believe that then that means me and that means Noah. This puts the Jews in an extremely awkward situation. How do we defend ourselves while still displaying religious tolerance? And why do we have to defend ourselves against a religion we don’t even believe in?

You know, one could argue from the Christian point of view that the Jews were given the role illustrated in the New Testament by God in order to give Christians salvation. After all, if Jesus hadn’t died on the cross for the sins of mankind, then where would all of those sinners be? Except that I don’t believe that the Jews have blood on their hands. No, not at all. I believe that the Gospels were written centuries after Jesus died on the cross (if Jesus did, in fact, exist and did, in fact, die on a cross) and were written to convert people.

I’m a little scared of Gibson’s movie. In fact, I’m a little scared of fundamentalist Christians period. If you believed that the Bible was the actual word of God, how could you not follow it? Follow it exactly? Me, I don’t believe it and that’s why I’m a Reform Jew and not an Orthodox Jew. But as much as it scares me, I also believe in Gibson’s right to promulgate his views. And while I find his views disturbing, I believe that they are rooted in his devotion to his faith. It’s not like he’s out trying to get people to believe in blood libel; he’s just trying to tell people the truth as he understands it. I guess if I was a zillionaire with access to movie cameras, I might be doing the same thing.

This journalist does a much better job than I of explaining the social and religious complexities surrounding Gibson’s film.

Want to know more about the debate surrounding the Sanhedrin’s culpability in the crucifixion? Here are some links: