- Mel Gibson's controversial film on the Crucifixion has
been pilloried by Jewish leaders but is being hailed by US Catholics as
the best recruiting tool for 2,000 years.
-
- NEW YORK -- Across
America last week thousands of Christian pastors and priests sat down in
front of their television sets to watch a special hour-long broadcast on
a Christian cable channel. The subject was Mel Gibson's controversial film
about the death of Christ.
-
- But the objective was not just to watch a clip from the
movie and an interview with Gibson. It was instead to learn how to use
The Passion as a religious tool, how to use it to convert people and how
to plan for the film's release in just two weeks. For many Christian Americans,
The Passion will soon no longer be just a film. It will be a religious
experience.
-
- For some, that experience will be a bitter one. Even
before its release the film has stirred an intense debate in the country's
many Christian churches, raising controversial issues that have dogged
Church history for millennia. Some critics have labelled it anti-Semitic
because they are disturbed by its brutal depiction of Christ's death at
the hands of the Jewish authorities in first-century Jerusalem.
-
- Others believe it may also prompt a re-examination by
many Americans of Jesus's identity as a Jewish preacher and the complex
relationship between Judaism and the birth of Christianity.
-
- The Passion has been seized on by American Christians
as the biggest marketing opportunity in their history. In Plano, Texas,
one Baptist church has hired out an entire 20-screen cinema for the 25
February opening night. In Costa Mesa, California, local congregations
have had their services cancelled on the opening weekend. Instead they
will be taken to the cinema to see the film.
-
- The Catholic League has already given away 3,000 discounted
tickets. Christian marketing firms are preparing to distribute tens of
millions of tracts, prayer cards, CDs and even door hangers, all bearing
images or messages from the film. One Californian marketing firm, called
Outreach, is coaching church leaders on how to blanket-buy cinema tickets
for the film, organise mass viewings and distribute the film's literature
around their neighbourhoods. Daniel Southern, the president of an evangelical
firm, the American Tract Society, said the film is 'one of the greatest
opportunities for evangelism in 2,000 years'.
-
- But it does not stop there. A concentrated campaign of
showing the film to carefully selected Christian audiences has produced
the sort of 'buzz' that Hollywood executives would usually pay millions
of dollars for. Gibson has staged screenings for at least 10,000 pastors
and other Christian leaders over the past two months. At one screening,
300 Jesuit priests watched the film in California.
-
- 'I think it is going to be significant in the whole history
of Christianity,' said Louis Giovino, a director at the Catholic League.
Giovino has seen the film and said it struck him as so powerful that it
could be used as a tool for conversion. 'It is definitely going to impact
on people. It is the most powerful movie that I have ever seen. If I pray,
I now use images from the film,' he said.
-
- Even the film's critics accept that it is going to have
a huge impact on Christians across the world. 'More people will see this
in the next three months than saw traditional Passion plays over the past
2,000 years,' said Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League,
which believes that the film could cause anti-Semitism.
-
- Controversy has long dogged the film. It is Gibson's
personal project and he has poured $25 million of his own fortune into
making it. He also stunned Hollywood by deciding to make the film entirely
in Aramaic and Latin, the authentic languages of the Middle East at the
time of Christ. He even resisted the idea of using English subtitles, but
later relented and has inserted them into the movie.
-
- Gibson also drew the wrath of elements of the Vatican
last month, after producers for the film claimed the Pope had hailed it
with the phrase 'it is as it was' after a private viewing in Rome. Vatican
officials later tried to backtrack from the comments, saying that the Pope
never commented on art.
-
- But the true controversy surrounding The Passion is the
allegation that it blames Jewish people for killing Christ. Historically
many anti-Semites have used this 'blood guilt' argument as a justification
for attacks on Jews.
-
- 'We have a problem here. Already one quarter of Americans
believe Jews killed Jesus, and that's before this movie comes out,' said
Foxman, who secretly attended a Christian screening of the film in Florida.
-
- The Passion follows a literal interpretation of the Gospels.
It depicts their betrayal of Jesus by the Jewish authorities and the Jewish
mob. 'The Jews and a group of sadistic Roman soldiers are the only ones
portrayed as evil. The Jews make bloodthirsty calls for Jesus's death on
a continuous basis,' Foxman said.
-
- Gibson is a follower of an obscure ultra-traditionalist
Catholic sect that rejects many recent reforms of the Catholic Church,
does not recognise the current Pope and still conducts Mass in Latin. Gibson's
father, Hutton Gibson, also stoked up problems when he told one interviewer
that the Vatican reforms of the 1960s had been a 'Masonic plot backed by
the Jews'.
-
- Gibson has vehemently denied any anti-Semitism in the
film, saying that it is a faithful interpretation of scripture. But he
raised eyebrows when he claimed that he witnessed agnostics and Muslims
on the movie set convert to Christianity during production. He has also
warned of a 'dark force' that tried to interrupt screenings and told how
actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, was struck by lightning during filming.
-
- In a bid to defuse some of the tension around the film's
release, Gibson last week wrote to the Anti-Defamation League after reportedly
deleting a key scene in which a priest calls down an eternal curse on the
Jews. 'You are a man of integrity and a man of faith and I do not take
your concerns lightly... all who ever breathe life on this Earth are children
of God and my most binding obligation to them, as a brother in this waking
world, is to love them,' Gibson wrote.
-
- However, Gibson did not address any of Foxman's specific
questions about the film. Foxman has now written back to Gibson asking
that he include a 'post-script' in the film that will ask its viewers not
to come away with anti-Semitic feelings. 'Your words do not mitigate our
concerns about the potential consequences of your film... How will the
film be viewed by others? Could the images of your film be used by those
who are disposed toward hatred to harden their hearts?'
-
- Foxman is still convinced that the film will play into
a rise in anti-Semitic attacks across the world, though he accepts that
Gibson himself is not at all anti-Semitic. 'He has a very strong belief.
But it is others we are worried about. We just fear that people will come
away from watching this and blame the Jews,' he said.
-
- But many Christians dismiss Foxman's concerns. 'Anything
like this is going to get resistance. But it is ridiculous. I have seen
the movie too, and I did not see any hatred of the Jews,' said Giovino.
-
- One thing is certain though: the hype surrounding the
film is going to ensure a box-office smash. Experts predict Gibson will
recoup his $25m investment on the opening weekend alone.
-
- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2004
-
- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1143458,00.html
-
-
- Comment
Alton Raines
2-9-04
-
- Here's how ridiculous this is. We're talking about a
people whose most sacred holy text is little more than a perpetual indictiment
of their own national sins for over 5000 years! Now suddenly Jews don't
want to face up to their history? Anyone who knows the Old Testament knows
that it is literally jam packed with Israel's historic sins and lamentations
for sins. Maybe it's just a little too much to own up to having, as Peter
(a Jew) put it to the people of Israel, "you...who...murdered the
Lord of Life"?! Yeah, it's not a nice thing to nail God incarnate
to a cross in order to hang on to some land and money. But that's what
they did. That's what they have to face. Pilate was wanting to let Jesus
go, according to the records. He had no desire to put him to death. He
offered the people a choice, and they chose Barabbas, a known murderer,
over Jesus, "who did no wrong." And it wasn't just the high priests
in on the conspiracy against the Lord, Pilate asked the people, "Who
do you want? Who shall I release? Who will be crucified?" It was the
PEOPLE who cried out for Barabbas, and when asked of Jesus they cried out
"Crucify him!"
This is what they did. This is what they must face. This is the truth.
This is reality. Now, anyone who dares to speak the truth of the matter
is going to be labeled an anti-semite. Well, then so be it! Anti-semite
it is. Better an anti-semite than one who would obscure the truth! I don't
have an anti-jewish bone in my body, but truth is more important than "ecummenical
harmony." Screw that. Jesus said, "You shall know the truth,
and the truth shall set you free." He wasn't known for being verbose!
-
-
-
- Who Killed Christ?
-
- Newsweek says we can't rely on the New Testament for
the answer
-
- By Michael A. Hoffman II
- Copyright 2004 revisionisthistory.org
-
- The following excerpts from the Feb. 16, 2004 Newsweek
magazine cover story, "Who Killed Christ?" were chosen to reveal
the core of Newsweek's prevarication and mendacity. To read the window-dressing
intended to make the lies palatable examine the article in its entirety
at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/
-
- Note that Newsweek does not deal with David Klinghoffer's
assertions in the Los Angeles Times (Jan. 1, 2004) that the Talmud itself
upholds the accuracy of Gibson's film.
-
- Newsweek proclaims that the New Testament is not always
"a faithful record of historical events." In that case, what
is? Why not debate the relative merits of the various sources, both Biblical
and non-Biblical, rather than merely derogating the Christian account,
while upholding the supposed omniscience of a "history" that
is never adequately sourced, except for vague references to skimpy citations
by Tacitus and Philo and allusions to Josephus that do not bear scrutiny?
Newsweek claims veracity for any pro-Pharisee version of history and shoots
holes in ancient Christian accounts because the Newsweek article is an
exercize in public relations for Judaism, not objective scholarship.
-
- Newsweek mocks the Evangelist Matthew's depiction of
a vengeful Jewish mob: "...consider the source of the dialogue: a
partisan Gospel writer." In the eyes of Newsweek, anything in the
Gospel that points to the complicity of the religious leadership of the
Jews in the death of Christ is suspect, "partisan."
-
- In instances where Newsweek imagines the New Testament
can be used to blunt criticism of Judaism, however, the New Testament account
is upheld and we are cautioned against "misreading it." But in
those instances where the New Testament is unambiguous in assigning guilt
for Christ's death to the majority of the Jews of His day, then Newsweek
advises us to discount the New Testament. What hypocrisy!
-
- Newsweek deviously pretends that when Christ said, "Father
forgive them for they know not what they do," He was referring to
the Pharisees. Actually the Church has always taught that the cosmic crime
of the Pharisees is that they knew precisely who Jesus was and demanded
his execution in spite of that knowledge. Christ was begging forgiveness
for the Roman soldiers, who surely had no idea who the "King of the
Jews" was.
-
- Newsweek insists on the absolute villainy and culpability
of the Romans. This is a fixed dogma with Newsweek. This fallacy has been
a mainstay of Judaic propaganda about the crucifixion and Newsweek is careful
to toe the party line. And yet what does Newsweek have to say about the
fact that the Roman army acted as God's avenging troops when it destroyed
the Temple in AD 70 and smashed the corrupt rule of the Pharisees over
Jerusalem? What of the Roman centurion, about whom Jesus said he could
not find greater faith in all of Israel?
-
- Even the rabbis' Talmud affirms that Christ was given
a trial (rather than being summarily executed by the Pharisees themselves),
only because he had found favor with the (Roman) authorities. This important
corroborative datum is excluded from the Newsweek article.
-
- At the conclusion of the Newsweek essay, the pedantic
author explains with painstaking didactism how Gibson might have "avoided
this firestorm." Newsweek advises that Mel should have simply made
a bland, politically-correct, toadying film in accordance with guidelines
issued by the modern Catholic Church, which "suggest dropping scenes
of large, chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin
trial." In other words, Mel should have engaged in self-censorship
in order to appease commissars like Abe Foxman and gain favorable notice
in rags like Newsweek.
-
- Newsweek sees nothing ironic in counseling an artist
to avoid controversy by submitting his work to history-by-committee-of-Philistines.
Even though Newsweek in the past has consistently defended the most outrageously
blasphemous and pornographic books, films and other anti-Establishment
"works of art" on the lofty basis of the "prerogative of
the artist," all of that radical defiance is suspended when the artist
is Mel Gibson and the Establishment being defied is Jewish. Newsweek's
message to Gibson is that he would be wise to domesticate his vision and
dumb down his movie until it constitutes pabulum. That was not Newsweek's
message to Martin Scorcese when the latter deeply offended Christians with
his film, "The Last Temptation of Christ."
-
- Perhaps the true significance of the Newsweek cover story
is in the degree to which Gibson's movie has frightened the Establishment,
hence the massive media damage-control that runs the risk of overkill and
blowback -- winning sympathy for the beseiged Gibson and generating millions
of dollars worth of free publicity for his film, which debuts Feb. 25.
-
- NEWSWEEK, "Who Killed Christ?" Feb. 16 cover
story
-
- "...the Bible can be a problematic source. Though
countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is
not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product
of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular
points to make and visions to advance. And the roots of Christian anti-Semitism
lie in overly literal readings which are, in fact, misreadings of many
New Testament texts...
-
- "...two NEWSWEEK screenings of a rough cut of the
movie raise important historical issues about how Gibson chose to portray
the Jewish people and the Romans. To take the film's account of the Passion
literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably
happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their
followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again;
Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence...Pilate
was not the humane figure Gibson depicts...
-
- "So why was the Gospel story-- the story Gibson
has drawn on --told in a way that makes 'the Jews' look worse than the
Romans? The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in
gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives
several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young
religion understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism attractive
to as broad an audience as possible.
-
- "...we can begin to understand the origins of the
unflattering Gospel image of the Temple establishment...the writers downplayed
the role of the ruling Romans in Jesus' death. The advocates of Christianity
-- then a new, struggling faith -- understandably chose to placate, not
antagonize, the powers that were. Why remind the world that the earthly
empire which still ran the Mediterranean had executed your hero as a revolutionary?
-
- "...In the memorable if manufactured crowd scene
in the version of the movie screened by NEWSWEEK, Gibson included a line
that has had dire consequences for the Jewish people through the ages.
The prefect is again improbably resisting the crowd, the picture of a just
ruler. Frustrated, desperate, bloodthirsty, the mob says: 'His blood be
on us and on our children!' Gibson ultimately cut the cry from the film,
and he was right to do so. Again, consider the source of the dialogue:
a partisan Gospel writer. The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in
the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire and to
put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light.
-
- "...A moment later in Gibson's movie, Pilate is
questioning Jesus and, facing a silent prisoner, says, 'You will not speak
to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify
you?' Jesus then replies: '... he who delivered me to you has the greater
sin.' The 'he' in this case is Caiaphas. John's point in putting this line
in Jesus' mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite.
But in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the
Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus' death than the
Romans arean implication unsupported by history...
-
- "The Roman soldiers who torture Jesus and bully
him toward Golgotha are portrayed as evil, taunting and vicious, and they
almost certainly were. ..After Jesus, carrying his cross, sees the faces
of the priests, he is shown saying: 'No one takes my life from me, but
I lay it down of my own accord.' Is this intended to absolve the priests?
Perhaps. From the cross, Jesus says: 'Forgive them, for they know not what
they do.'
-
- "...Are the gospels themselves anti-Semitic?...they
are polemics, written by followers of a certain sect who disdained other
factions... Without understanding the milieu in which the texts were composed,
we can easily misinterpret them. The tragic history of the persecution
of the Jewish people since the Passion clearly shows what can go wrong
when the Gospels are not read with care...
-
- "The justification for anti-Semitism was articulated
by Pope Innocent III, who reigned in the early years of the 13th century:
'the blasphemers of the Christian name,' he said, should be 'forced into
the servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised
their sacrilegious hands against Him who had come to confer true liberty
upon them, thus calling down His blood upon themselves and their children.'
After the horror of Hitler's Final Solution, the Roman Church began to
reassess its relationship with the Jewish people...
-
- "Was there any way for him (Gibson) to have made
a movie about the Passion and avoided this firestorm? There was. There
are a number of existing Catholic pastoral instructions detailing the ways
in which the faithful should dramatize or discuss the Passion. 'To attempt
to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage
from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth,' reads
one such instruction, 'is to risk violating the integrity of the texts
themselves... it is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations
to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that
'it's in the Bible'.
-
- "The church also urges 'the greatest caution' when
'it is a question of passages that seem to show the Jewish people as such
in an unfavorable light.' The teachings suggest dropping scenes of large,
chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial. They
also note that there is evidence Pilate was not a 'vacillating administrator'...The
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, NEWSWEEK has learned, is
publishing these teachings in book form to coincide with the release of
Gibson's movie...
-
- "...Bluntly put, Jesus had to die for the Christian
story to unfold, and the proper Christian posture toward the Jewish people
should be one of respect, for the man Christians choose to see as their
savior came from the ancient tribe of Judah, the very name from which 'Jew'
is derived..."
-
- Judaism's Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II can be
ordered online at amazon.com
- Or send $14 to: Independent History & Research, Box
849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
-
- http://www.RevisionistHistory.org/wire6.html\
|
