The Passion, the Churches and the Jews

Of course I can't seriously comment on Mel Gibson's new film without seeing it, and I'm not sure that I want to do that. It has seemed to me somewhat missing the point to accuse Gibson of not taking account of the position of the Second Vatican Council in his depiction of the Passion. Gibson is fairly clearly the type of traditionalist who would instinctively distrust Vatican II, and generally not be favourable to the pontificate of John XXIII (who showed his intentions earlier still by removing reference to 'perfidious Jews' from the Good Friday liturgy), and there's no artistic reason to criticise a director for not reflecting the position of his Church. I'm taken aback, however, by the force of Leon Wieseltier's scathing observations in The New Republic:

The only cinematic achievement of The Passion of the Christ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence. The notion that there is something spiritually exalting about the viewing of it is quite horrifying. The viewing of The Passion of the Christ is a profoundly brutalizing experience. Children must be protected from it. (If I were a Christian, I would not raise a Christian child on this.) Torture has been depicted in film many times before, but almost always in a spirit of protest. This film makes no quarrel with the pain that it excitedly inflicts. It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, and it leaves you with the feeling that the man who made it hates life.

On the particular point of the film's alleged antisemitism, Wieseltier says this:

In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie, and anybody who says otherwise knows nothing, or chooses to know nothing, about the visual history of anti-Semitism, in art and in film. What is so shocking about Gibson's Jews is how unreconstructed they are in their stereotypical appearances and actions. These are not merely anti-Semitic images; these are classically anti-Semitic images. In this regard, Gibson is most certainly a traditionalist.

This does strike me as worrying, and worrying especially at this time, because the stock images of Jewry that have been passed in Christian tradition from at least St John Chrysostom's Orations Against the Jews are far from extinguished (as there was reason to hope they might have been in the decades after the Holocaust), and extend a good deal further than antediluvian traditionalist Catholicism. It's customary - and of course, as the statement stands, true - to distinguish criticism of the modern state of Israel from traditional antisemitism, but as Melanie Phillips remarked in The Spectator a couple of years ago:

Criticism of Israel’s behaviour is perfectly legitimate. But a number of prominent Christians agree that a line is being crossed into anti-Jewish hatred. This is manifested by ascribing to every Israeli action malevolent motives while dismissing Palestinian terrorism and anti-Jewish diatribes; the belief that Jews should be denied the right to self-determination and their state dismantled; the conflation of Zionism and a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ of vested interests; and the disproportionate venom of the attacks.

That she is right in this can be verified almost weekly by examining Church statements - and the most egregious generally come from liberal Protestantism. Here, for example, is a statement released by the World Council of Churches last week, condemning the construction of what it preposterously terms Israel's annexation of Palestinian territory:

The WCC Executive Committee, meeting in Geneva from 17-20 February, 2004 guided by the teachings and Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility and by his death and resurrection has promised one new humanity on the foundation of faithful witnesses for people of every race; having received an updated report on Israel’s construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and in and around East Jerusalem, since April 2002, which is in departure of the Armistice Line of 1949 ( Green Line) and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law is;

Gravely concerned about the fundamental violations of human rights of the Palestinian people, the confiscation and destruction of their land and resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory and in particular its devastating humanitarian consequences on the life and dignity of innocent Palestinians....

You wouldn't think from this statement that Israel has any particular pressing need to construct a barrier (most of which is not a 'wall' but a barbed-wire fence) to shield its civilians from terrorist attack. The statement has the further indecency to draw an analogy between attacks on civilians and attempts by a sovereign and democratic state to prevent those attacks; the WCC:

Calls on the Israeli Government and its defence forces and as well as all Palestinian armed groups to give up their strategy of mutual killings and terror, in order to achieve lasting peace....

I suppose some sort of riposte to this inflammatory nonsense would be to note the WCC's own political predilections, in the form of the £43,000 grant it made, under the auspices of its 'Programme to Cambat Racism', in 1978 to the party of Robert Mugabe. But that might give the impression that the WCC is an extreme and unrepresentative body; I wish it were so, but in fact the WCC's premises are widespread, as will be obvious if you consider counterexamples.

One of the greatest Protestant theologians of the last century, Reinhold Niebuhr, saw the issue more clearly than most. He wrote an article in The New Republic, 4 February 1957 (reprinted in A Reinhold Niebuhr Reader edited by Charles Brown), entitled Our Stake in Israel. Niebuhr was no theological obscurantist - he stated bluntly that a biblical right to the territory of Palestine 'evaporated some thousands of years ago' - but founded his argument on straight grounds of Christian obligation:

The simple fact is that all schemes for political appeasement and economic cooperation must fail unless there is an unequivocal voice from us that we will not allow the state [of Israel] to be annihilated and that we will not judge its desperate efforts to gain some strategic security (by holding on to the Gaza Strip and demanding access to the Gulf of Aqaba, for instance) as an illegitimate use of force.

The location of the state of Israel may have been a mistake; though the confluence of historical forces made it unavoidable. The birth and growth of the nation is a glorious spiritual and political achievement. Its continued existence may require detailed economic strategies for the whole region and policies for the resettlement of the Arab refugees. But the primary condition of its existence is our word that we will not allow 'any nation so conceived and so dedicated to perish from the earth.'

Just ask yourself: disregarding the fact that there is no living figure in Christian social thought to compare with Niebuhr's moral and intellectual authority, can you imagine a liberal Protestant leader today speaking in terms like these about this moral cause? Neither can I.

Comments

[waf]

Mr Kamm, your prejudices are showing. Why do you expect Christians to put up with this nonsense ? Is this not ant-Christianism ? Should we not be concerned ?

You can't think of any living Christian with the moral authority of Niebuhr. I guess a couple of billion people could take offence at that. And what gives you the right to call Catholicism 'antediluvian' ?

Someone as smart as you must know that the only religion around with any possible claim to that title is that religion which denies Christ's divinity, and claims Noah for a prophet.

But is it anti-Semitism to say so ?

Waf

[Oliver Kamm]

You're welcome to criticise what I write, but please avoid misrepresenting it. I didn't say no living Christian compares to Niebuhr's moral and intellectual authority (I'm sure there are many good and brilliant such people, though Niebuhr was a particularly good and brilliant man): I said no living figure in Christian social thought does, and I stand by my remark.

I didn't call Roman Catholicism antediluvian: I specifically applied the term to the type of traditionalist Catholicism favoured by Mel Gibson and, still more, his father. You are technically correct to dispute the adjective, though a mite pedantic: it is often used figuratively as a synonym for reactionary, but as all branches of Christianity by definition post-date the Flood, it is not literally accurate. The word I ought to have used instead is Ultramontane.

'Is this not anti-Christianism?' No, it is not.

[waf]

I didn't mean to mis-represent. It is a fact thought that for the majority of the world's Christians, your remark is an insult. Most Christians by definition would recognize the moral authority of the Pope. Niebuhr's authority would not extend much beyind his classroom, his non-orthodox church, or people like yourself who read and agree with him.

Ultramontane is an interesting word. A new one for me. I take it you're using it in its German protestant sense as a derogatory term for those who recognize the authority of the Papacy ? ie. All Catholics.

As for Mel Gibson's father - who cares ? Few sons agree with much of what their fathers have to say. The film has to be judged on its merits, which makes the pre-release cries of 'anti-semitism' all the more surprising.

As far as I know, Mel Gibson is in full communion with the Church. Your representing him as 'reactionary' is thus a further insult to those who are in similar agreement with Orthodox Christianity.

[Oliver Kamm]

No, I'm using the word 'Ultramontane' in its recognised historical sense of a sectarian party that sprang up around Pope Pius IX, agitated for a very strict definition of papal infallibility and urged a sentimental veneration of the Holy Father unknown in both the Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation. Cardinal Newman wrote one of his most famous letters (to W.B. Ullathorne in 1870) in response to concerns about the Ultramontane party, in which he complained that such agitation would merely revive past scandals about the papacy (see Ian Ker's standard biography, 'John Henry Newman', page 652).

If you are still determined to take offence at my comments, as it appears to me you are, then there is nothing much I either can or would wish to do about it. My post went to some lengths to express my respect and intellectual debt, as a non-Christian, to one of the greatest Christian theologians of the last century, and I fail to see how any fair-minded reader would interpret it as anti-Christian. I would add that your judgement that 'most Christians by definition would recognise the moral authority of the Pope' has not been true - or at least not 'by definition' - since at least Humbert of Silva Candida's Bull of excommunication against the bishop of Constantinople in 1054.

[waf]

I take no offense from your remarks. I expect them. I am interested in the way commentators casually insult Christianity, whilst at the same time demanding utmost respect from Christians for other religions. cf the article in New republic you linked to. or the very controversy about this film.

The term 'Ultramontane' has a long history, has been used by different groups at different times to mean different things. All meanings are intended as insults. You expect a lot of the reader to divine the sense of your particular usage.

I expect if you were to talk about Judaism, or Islam in terms such as antediluvian and reactionary, most people would understand you were intending to be un-complimentary.

And yes, most Christians would see the pope as having (some) moral authority - firstly all the Catholics, secondly, and in a different way, all the Greek and Russians who have inter-communion arrangements with the Roman Church. and thirdly huge numbers of protestant Evangelicals, who agree with much of the pope's teaching. The only Christian denominations with significant differences in moral belief are the various Anglican and Presbyterian sects, and their offshoots. A declining number.

You are choosing to highlight Mel Gibson, a man with standard Christian beliefs, and make out he is some kind of nut.

No insult taken or intended .

[Jackie D]

For what it is worth, I am a Christian (non-denominational) and not at all offended by Oliver's comment. As he makes quite clear, it's not anti-Christian to point out that he doesn't find any current figures in Christian social thinking to be on a par with Niebuhr. Further, contrary to what Waf says, most non-Catholic Christians I know don't view the Pope as possessing much moral authority; indeed, many Catholics I know don't hold him in much esteem, either. Are these Christians also "anti-Christian"? No, they are not.

[waf]

OLiver is free to think what he likes about Niebuhr compared to any living person.

When he states as fact, in his words, Niebuhr's superiority in moral matters to any living person, then he ipso facto insults an awful lot of people because -

The majority of Christians when they go to church publicly profess certain things. In the case of Catholics, that includes an acknowledgement of the authority of the papal office in matters of faith and morals.

Any Catholic who does that and then confesses their lack of esteem to you, Jackie, is lying to someone.

[Jackie D]

I attended Catholic Mass in the US for years, since childhood, and I cannot remember one time that I was led in a public profession that acknowledged "the authority of the papal office in matters of faith and morals," waf. I've only been to Mass in Britain once, this past Christmas with friends I was visiting for the holiday, and there was no such public profession then, either. There *was* a public prayer for the Pope and other Church leaders, that they be guided by Christ in their work, and that they be blessed with wisdom and courage. Most of the Catholics I know -- and, as a former Catholic, I've talked to many of them about just this matter -- may pray such things, but that's partly because they think the Pope (and other church leaders) are obviously badly in need of that wisdom, courage, and guidance from Christ. It doesn't mean that they think the guy's doing such a stellar job right now. How one could think otherwise when looking, just to name one troubling aspect of his leadership, at the issue of sexual abuse of children by priests being actively covered up with the Vatican's knowledge and urging is beyond me -- and many, many Catholics who believe their Church can and should do better. To them, the Pope's actions and words on many issues are far from Christ-like.

(Before Christmas, the last time I'd been in a Catholic church was in 1999, for the funeral Mass of my nephew who had died in utero at 34 weeks' gestation; believe it or not, not all Catholics believe that babies who are not christened linger in purgatory or go to hell, despite what the church leaders they pray for may say. This is only one of many issues -- birth control and divorce being principle among them, perhaps -- which have made modern Catholics turn away from the Pope and the Vatican, even if they dutifully pray for them at Mass; I am surprised that this division would come as a newsflash to anyone, Catholic or otherwise.)

Go ahead and say that such Catholics are "anti-Christian"; it still doesn't make it so, and it still doesn't make Mr Kamm's comments "anti-Christian".

[waf]

They put it more elegantly :

Most Christian churches hold to the Nicene Creed. Catholic services feature the recitation of this at each Mass. The bit that goes '.. we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church..' is held by catholics to be a reference to the teaching office of the pope, in apostolic succession.

If you find yourself at odds with the Nicene Creed, then certainly you would be at odds with what is generally called Christianity.

Incidentally, Jesus' own teaching on divorce is particularly demanding. That's not an invention of the Catholic hierarchy.

[Oliver Kamm]

I fear there are diminishing marginal returns in pursuing discussion with someone determined not to read what he's determined to be offended by, but here goes.

"When he states as fact, in his words, Niebuhr's superiority in moral matters to any living person..."

What I said was "there is no living figure in Christian social thought to compare with Niebuhr's moral and intellectual authority." What you cite as my words are not my words, and the judgement you attribute to me bears no relation to the one I made.

"The term 'Ultramontane' has a long history, has been used by different groups at different times to mean different things. All meanings are intended as insults. You expect a lot of the reader to divine the sense of your particular usage."

The term 'Ultramontane' does not have a long history. Its widespread usage dates from the mid-19th century, which is very recent in terms of the history of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been used since specifically, descriptively and neutrally to refer to an extreme anti-modernist current active at the time of the First Vatican Council. As, on your own account, today is the first time you have encountered the term, I wouldn't necessarily expect you to be aware of this, but if you consult any standard history of the Christian Church in the 19th century you will find it used as I have described it. (To take an example almost at random, a recent history of Christianity by Brian Moynahan, The Faith, states on page 656: "[Henry] Manning [future Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster] was part of an ardent and fresh Ultramontanism, the reaction to liberalism that favoured absolute papal authority at the expense of national or diocesan influence." Moynhan uses the term correctly and in its proper historical context.)

Your creativeness in recounting my words is in evidence also in your rewriting of your own. Your assertion that "most Christians would see the pope as having (some) moral authority" is not the same statement as "Most Christians by definition would recognize the moral authority of the Pope", which is what you began with and are wise not now to seek to defend.

"You are choosing to highlight Mel Gibson, a man with standard Christian beliefs, and make out he is some kind of nut."

What I in fact said - and this is the only reference in my post to Mel Gibson - was this: "Gibson is fairly clearly the type of traditionalist who would instinctively distrust Vatican II, and generally not be favourable to the pontificate of John XXIII ...." This is a (rather mild) statement of fact, and bears no relation to the insulting remark you attribute to me.

I've extended you the courtesy now of a long reply in three parts, and I have to say I wouldn't normally have done this with a contributor to my blog who fails to observe minimally adequate standards of intellectually honest discussion. The reason I have done so in your case is one I'm not happy about and will explain so that no one should be in any doubt on the matter.

It is the policy of this blog not to post on matters of religious belief, which a liberal society such as I favour must regard as belonging to the realm of private judgement. That's not to say it's impossible or illegitimate to discuss such matters, but I don't regard it as fruitful to comment myself on matters of theological doctrine, on which I am in any case no expert. Where I do comment on religion in this blog, I do so where it relates to the issues that I elect to write about, viz. politics, economics and culture. With your obsessive litany and preposterous charge that I have insulted Christianity, you have put me in the invidious position of having to refute comments that I wouldn't normally dignify with a response in order to make it clear that I have have said no such thing, hold no such view, and harbour no such intention. If, despite this, you are determined to feel yourself insulted, then you will have to cope with it, for I am not going to say anything merely to make you feel better.

[Barry Meislin]

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn

Indeed?

The film has certainly stimulated much discussion. One may well wonder what else may be stimulated. Three views....
1. Adulation (Michael Novak):
http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402250908.asp

2. Outrage (Christopher Hitchens):
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13993739&method=full&siteid=50143

3. Synthesis (Dennis Prager):
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031028.shtml

(Hat tip for the first and third links: The Belmont Club,
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/ )

[Yehudit]

"As far as I know, Mel Gibson is in full communion with the Church. Your representing him as 'reactionary' is thus a further insult to those who are in similar agreement with Orthodox Christianity."

Gibson is publically and for some time identified with a sect of Catholicism that explicitly rejects this authority of this Pope and the teachings of Vatican II. "Reactionary" is exactly the right descriptive word.

[GrimReaper]

One can't get away from the fact that Jesus described the Jewish priests of his time as "whited sepulchres" maintaining nothing more than a facade of spirituality; while the Jews, for their part, rejected his claims to be the Messiah. Christians and Jews can only get along by agreeing to differ; a film that goes out of its way to exonerate the Romans while emphasising the Jewish rejection of Jesus can best be described as unhelpful.
The Jews also rejected Mohammed's claims to be a Prohpet; this provoked Mohammed to massacre Jews and created an enduring islamic anti-semitism. Yet few modern pundits seem to be willing to recognise the intensity of modern islamic anti-semitism; that would make it too difficult to blame Israel for everything unpleasant that happens in the Middle East.

[John Thacker]

One of those "stock figures" of Jewish representation is Fagin, from Oliver Twist. Funnily enough, Ian McCartney, chairman of the Labour Party, compared Oliver Letwin, who is Jewish, to Fagin the other day. This seems a similar offense.

[Nick Lauber]

I don’t see how Gibson’s movie could be held to be manifestly anti-Semitic, after all, the protagonist (and agonist for that matter) is Jewish. For years after the crucifixion many Christians simply considered themselves Jesus Jews, and today, the protestant evangelicals (Southern Baptist, Penticostal, Church of Christ, etc.) in the USA (to whom this movie seems to have a special resonance) are frequently noted as being more devoted to the old testament than modern “establishment Christians”.

So also, the evangelical community in the US is far more pro-Israel than the country is at large (almost to the point of unanimity). Many evangelical churches even sponsor individual settlers from Eastern Europe and Russia who immigrate to Israel. One could also add that these evangelicals are greatly over represented in the US armed forces and are risking their lives on a day to day basis in an war in which Israel is at the very least an auxiliary beneficiary.

I think Jews around the world have much more reason to fear what comes out of news rooms at the BBC, NYT, and Guardian than any movie Mel Gibson might make.

[sophie]

There's a few interesting pieces, from a Jewish standpoint on The Passion at the Tradition website run by Rabbi Lapin(whose URL for the moment, alas, eludes me). Michael Medved's piece is very cogent, and so are Rabbi Lapin's.
I have to say too that as someone who was brought up with the same kind of religious background as Mel Gibson(indeed, we knew the Gibsons and my father and Mel's were part of the Latin Mass Society committee meetings in the 1970;s) that there's been a lot of unfair hot air vented against a religious minority who are nowhere near as black as they're painted by people who have no idea what they actually believe. I'm a practising artist, like Mel; a novelist, in my case. I can assure you that being brought up with that Catholic rebel background certainly did not predispose me to anti-Semitism, quite the opposite. I felt very strongly as a child that to be anti-Jewish was in fact to reject Jesus himself; that anti-semitism was a vile betrayal of Jesus, his family, friends and disciples. We were made very aware of the suffering of Christ and that it was human cruelty, indifference, cowardice and hatred that put him on the cross--things that are not the exclusive province of any race nation or religion, but are there in every human heart. My parents were(and still are) great supporters of Israel as well, and very aware of the fact that Christians should stand with Jews in making sure this brave little nation would not perish.
It is utterly unfair of the press to hound Mel Gibson in the way that's been happening and to try and condemn him for the reported sins of his father, who incidentally when we knew him, never uttered any anti-Jewish remarks. Why should people expect Mel should repudiate and denounce his father? I find this sickening. In any case Mel himself has said many times how he repudiates anti-Semitism itself.
I think that people are also letting preconceived perceptions get in the way of experiencing a work of art on its own terms. But maybe that always happens. At least this is a work of art that doesn't leave anyone indifferent. We should all be so lucky, I suppose!

[Barry Meislin]

A most interesting and welcome comment.

The problem is essentially a Jewish predilection to view current events through the prism of the recent and not so recent past, a past which saw Jews all too often suffering from religious, and associated, bigotry. The following column may shed some light on some of the historical underpinnings of those fears that have led to the comments made by some of the more outspoken Jewish leaders:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/articles/rhonheimer.html

If things have changed in this regard, as it seems to me all people of good will should hope, then all for the better.

For I have no doubts that those Jewish leaders who have expressed themselves forcefully on the film's potentially harmful consequences would wish to be proven that they have been totally and utterly wrong on this issue. And would rejoice if this were so.

[Alasdair Robinson]

Oliver,

Complaining that there aren't any contemporary thinkers like Reihold Neibuhr is like complaining that there aren't any contemporary composers like Mozart.

[sophie]

I can certainly quite understand why people would be worried, especially at a time like this when anti-Semitism seems to have acquired a whole new lease of life. Reading Gabriel Schoenfeld's recent book, The Return of anti-Semitism, certainly makes for frightening reading. But I think Mel's film is the wrong target, and I think(hope) that Barry is right, that the fears will be unfounded. There was an interesting article in the National Review on the day the film was released(Wed last week I think)by Joel Rosenberg, a former adviser to Binyamin Netayanhu and also to a minister in the present Israeli govt, Natan Sharansky, comparing a real anti-Semitic fim(a vile thing called Al-Shahat, from Syria)and Mel's film. It makes for interesting reading(it can be accessed it through the magazine's archives).

[sophie]

A quick note: for those interested, I've written about my childhood religious background, and its relationship to the Gibsons and the Passion, in a piece called 'The Eyes of the Icon', which can be seen online in the archives of Quadrant Magazine--www.quadrant.org.au, go to Archives, go to issue of October 1, 2003. This piece was also published in expanded version in the current issue of the US magazine Image, www.imagejournal.org, but I don't think my piece is archived online there.

[Michael B]

People will believe what they wish to believe about the film, from either having seen it or not. Excepting for the brouhaha I would not have taken the time to see it with someone in the theatre, though I did do that yesterday, precisely because of all the negative publicity surrounding the film.

I did not see any anti-Semitism in the film whatsoever. Literally zero. Where artistic license was taken it was completely within the bounds of standard practices. Too, almost all of those who treated Jesus favorably were fellow Jews, not Romans. The only ones treated as being truly sadistic or depraved were Romans (e.g. briefly, Herod and his gaggle of followers and more extensively the Roman sadists who actually enjoyed the raw scourging itself).

Pilate and his wife were given a nuanced treatment and much has been made of not making Pilate more cruel and oppressive, in keeping with other historical knowledge we have about him. But the film all falls within a mere twelve hour time frame and Pilate's treatment in the film is entirely commensurate with the account in the gospels (to the extent I can recall those accounts), as is that of his wife's.

An impressive piece of artistry and creativity on film, though am left to wonder what, specifically, is motivating the smear campaign, extreme distortions, etc. against both Gibson and the film.

[Michael B]

A link concerning the extra-gospel, historical accounts of Pilate and the likelihood that the gospels are in fact in sync with these other accounts. The other historical accounts referenced in this piece, written by a Dallas Theological Seminary professor, concern the writings of Philo and Josephus, a Jewish philosopher and historian.

[Lee.Spinks]

I cannot believe that anyone could have seen the film - as I have - and not recognised it as a vile piece of anti-semitic garbage. Examples of its racist malevolance are countless, but here are a few examples:

Pontius Pilate, a notorious Roman thug & a man eventually recalled to Rome for overstepping the bounds of tolerable Imperial behaviour, is portrayed as a conscience-striken liberal while a crowd of Jews bay for the blood of Jesus. Might Gibson adduce his historical evidence for this travesty?

Virtually every Jewish figure is a hook-nosed fiend drafted directly from Nazi Central Casting; Jesus, strangely enough, is a dreamboat Leading Guy Type.

During the ludicrous soft-porn flagellation-fest, Satan moves happily through the watching Jewish crowd. Subtle, eh?

At one point the Jewish children who torment Judas metamorphose into Satanic fiends. More subtelty.

As for this dreck about Gibson & dear old dad, why is it suddenly OK to defend Holocaust Deniers? Might we be told?

[Michael B]

What has been rather consistent coming from those attempting to smear Gibson and/or the film has been their over-heated rhetoric and presumptive anger, seemingly to help camouflage the lack of substance in the smears and charges they are attempting to forward. This has been true of Wieseltier as well as many others. Such a rhetorical baseball bat to the head approach certainly has the effect of putting people on the defensive, but it hardly forwards anything substantive or anything that could be characterized as being closely reasoned or closely argued.

No one is defending Gibson's 85 year old father, but Gibson is not his father any more than anyone else is their father. His father reportedly also made a statement that 9/11 was not caused by terrorists flying jets into the towers but was instead executed via remote control; no one is suggesting this extremely eccentric view is also held by the son. Too, far from denying anything, Gibson has now made several statements that affirm the Holocaust, the Shoah.

Regarding Pontius Pilate, the historical evidence is not at all of one piece, this link, provided previously, reveals precisely that. That is adduced historical evidence, not mere rhetorical exaggeration and excess.

One of the most egregious and reprehensible smears against Gibson is forwarded with the not so subtle aid of references to "Nazi central casting," etc. In fact, of the three identifiable disciples in the film, Judas Iscariot, Peter and John, only Peter has identifiably stereotypical characteristics. Jesus, for all I can tell, is no more of a "dreamboat" than Judas Iscariot in the film and if a message is being attempted in this vein then why not cast someone with stereotypical features in the role of Judas, the betrayer? Or why do so with Peter, who is destined to become, at least according to Catholic doctrine, the founder and first Pope of the church? Some members of the Sanhedrin do have some stereotypical features, but they are not over done or out of place in the least. Was Gibson suppose to fly in a bunch of Eskimos to play all the bad guys in the film? Additionally, virtually all of those who were cast to play decent and good roles in the film were identified as Jews, not Romans.

The violence depicted during the scourging scene was completely within the bounds of what did in fact occur during that era of Roman rule and oppression. There are other, far worse historical accounts of scourgings committed during that time, where bone, sinew and muscle were exposed, even worse. This site contains some detailed historical information on Roman era scourgings, some of the descriptions are not for the squeamish or easily offended.

And the depiction of Satan in the film, when he moved through the crowd. Again, was this depiction suppose to take place in a crowd of Eskimos or a crowd of Edwardian era englishmen wearing straw boater hats? Good grief.

A lot of heat, but no light; a lot of over-loaded and inflammatory rhetoric, but no substance; a lot of presumptive cherry picking of evidence, but no balance and no sense of historical context or perspective. All in all, much like Wieseltier, Hitchens, Denby and others - smears and jeers, but nothing appreciable or substantive that stands up to a more thoughtful and thoughtfully honest scrutiny.

[LeeS]

A more thoughtful & thoughtfully honest scrutiny? Oh, I see: you mean your own. I find it helps to print your own reviews with your Op-Ed; it removes the unhelpful static of reader inteference. I was also much moved by the Director's remark that a lot of people had died in the War: now there's affirmation when you need it. Upon mature reflection, I can also see that his decision to cherry-pick the Gospels for the versions of events most hospitable to his own, er, "vision" was stout impartiality; and if his "thoughtful" audience can overlook the import of the "stereotypical features" of the Pogroming Jews, who am I to complain. In any case, we can look the other way secure in the knowledge that those inflamed by the spectacle of such fascist kitsch would have found their victims anyway; if not, there's always the light of the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church to show them the way.

Hallelujah, etc.

[linden]

LeeS, in the film there are positive Romans and negative Romans, positive Jews and negative Jews. There's a 'diversity' of depiction. If you'd watched the movie, you'd notice this.

Is it possible that "...the Jewish children who torment Judas metamorphose into Satanic fiends" aren't meant to be Jews but rather allies of Satan?

[Michael B]

"Oh, I see: you mean your own." LeeS

But of course the reason references to historical information from the 1st century writings of Philo and Josephus were provided was to refer that aspect (Pilate's character) and other aspects of the discussion away from solely your or my own opinion and onto some historical/empirical information. It is precisely that type of historical info, not mere subjective or arbitrary opinion, that was being referenced with "...a more thoughtful and thoughtfully honest scrutiny."

[Somnopolis]

Noah is not considered a prophet in Judaism. Just a really good (and lucky) guy. Noah wasn't even Jewish, guys -- he predates Abraham, the first Jew.

To call Mel Gibson "a man with standard Christian beliefs" is demonstrably incorrect. Not a matter of opinion. Gibson has been the first to admit this. He is a man with neither standard Christian nor standard Catholic beliefs.

The worries about Holocaust-denial and Secret Jewish Cabals-Conspiracies is not a case of blaming Gibson for his father's statements. Mel Gibson himself is guilty of these. Read his interview with Peggy Noonan. Read his comments about his "modern secular Jew" and "anti-Christian" critics. Read his comments about how "the" Jews are trying to "blame" the Holocaust on the Catholic Church and how this is "revisionism." And after his father recently publicly said the Holocaust was a "fiction," Gibson the son said, "My father has never told me a lie."

My own two cents: This was a fascinating time in history: the birth of Christianity; the death of Temple Judaism and almost Judaism as a whole; the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire; etc. A good movie could and should be made about some or all of this. But this one ain't it. I also find it regrettable that no movies shall be made of the tens of thousands (if the Romans' own records can be trusted) of other Jews, men women and children, who were murdered on crosses by the Romans during this time period, culminating with the destruction of the Temple in the 70s C.E.

[Michael B]

While multitudes are clearly enjoying a prolonged season of defamation, spite and manifest hate against Gibson, I have yet to see anyone do so by any means other than distortions, failing to provide quotes, taking quotes out of context, falsely portraying what is in fact presented in the movie, presenting selective forms of "scholarship" (quasi or pseudo-scholarship) as authoritative forms of refutation against aspects of the movie, etc.

Some Gibson references and quotes concerning anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

From the Reader's Digest Peggy Noonan interview:

"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

And from the Diane Sawyer interview:

Gibson insisted on Primetime he is no anti-Semite, and that anti-Semitism is "un-Christian" and a sin that "goes against the tenets of my faith."

Asked whether it was the Jews who killed Jesus, Gibson noted Jesus, "was a child of Israel, among other children of Israel. There were Jews and Romans in Israel. There were no Norwegians there. The Jewish Sanhedrin, and those who they held sway over — and the Romans — were the material agents of his demise."

Gibson raised hackles recently with published statements in which he noted Holocaust victims were among many victims of World War II. He told Sawyer he doesn't mean to deny either that the Holocaust occurred or that there were millions killed.

"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."