Mel Gibson's "The Passion": any Jews seen it yet?

[scottcsmith]

Being Jewish, I'm a little skeptical of all the non-Jewish reviews of The Passion and the assurances that it is not anti-Semitic. Has any DU Jews seen this movie? Did you think it was anti-Semitic?

I'm going to see it when it hits Portland. I don't want to judge it too harshly without seeing it, but I know the account of the Passion in the Gospels puts the blame for Christ's death more heavily on Jewish shoulders than Roman shoulders. I read early reviews that stated Gibson was going to remove dialog from Matthew 27:24-25, where Pilate literally washes his hands of Christ and turns him over to the Jews, who yell out that Christ's blood will be on their hands and their children's hands. That's not a very Jew-friendly account of the Passion.

[brainwashed_youth]

1. fret not my friend

Gibson removes the line "His blood be on us and our children". And he is leaving the handwashing scene in. I'm sure you wil have nothing to worry about.

[supernova]

2. I think he said it's still there

just not pointed out. It's muddled under the crowd noise. If I am remembering the Diane Sawyer piece.

FWIW, I think that the Gospels represent a sort of intra-family jewish squabble about what the death of Jesus and just 30 years later, the fall the temple mean. We christians have given Matthew a twist in meaning (the anti-semitism) it didn't likely have to its original audience.

edit: clarification

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. it is still there

according to Gibson, but it is muddled in crowd noise and is spoken in Aramaic...should make it hard to discern for most...

theProdigal

[Az]

6. Muddled under crowd noise? Its in Arimaic!

Only way anyone is going to follow the dialog is to read the subtitles (put in under protest) and that will clearly spell out the line anyway.

[supernova]

7. I don't know

haven't seen the movie, so I won't say either way until I see it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. the line has been dropped

from the subtitles but will still be audible per the interview with Sawyer...and IS in Aramaic as is much of the movie...I think Latin was the other dominant laguage though Hebrew may have been it.

theProdigal

[johnny_socko]

3. Not anti-semitic

The head of the ADL, while having concerns, does not consider the film anti-semitic.

[johnny_socko]

5. Forgot something

I haven't seen it yet, so I guess I can't say from experience.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi johnny_socko!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

10. Both,

It's possible and better to be both.

Jesus was born, lived, and died a jew.

[Bridget Burke]

17. The Gospel(s) are not Gibson's only source

One is Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, a German Augustinian nun who lived from 1774 to 1824; she bore the stigmata.

www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13958_1.html

"Emmerich's visions of Jesus' suffering are very graphic. There is much more gore in her descriptions than in the gospels.
...
"The work shows the utmost reverence and respect for Jesus' followers, and references Mary, for example, as following Jewish customs. It also includes scenes where some Jews protest Jesus' death.

"In general, however, the book deals very harshly with Jews collectively. It often describes Jewish mobs as 'cruel,' 'wicked,' or 'hard-hearted,' as in this chapter: 'the sight of sufferings, far from exciting a feeling of compassion in the hard-hearted Jews, simply filled them with disgust, and increased their rage. Pity was, indeed, a feeling unknown in their cruel breasts.'

Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Spanish nun, is another. I don't have a link to her spiritual works here, but she's known in Texas as the Blue Lady. She appeared to Indians throughout the Southwest just as the mission era was beginning--although she never left Spain.

Mel certainly has a right to use whichever sources he likes, but should not simply state that anybody who disagrees with the movie disagrees with the Gospels. Perhaps he's not emphasizing his reliance on these mystical nuns, since they would make some of his Protestant fundamentalist supporters a bit nervous.

[scottcsmith]

20. No

Matthew's account of the Passion is the only account that adds the scene of the crowd screaming out for the blood of Jesus to be on their hands and their children's hands; by doing so, the author of Matthew shifts the responsibility for Christ's death from the Romans to the Jews. Jews living under Roman rule during the time Christ was supposedly alive, around 30 CE, did not have the power or authority to try and execute anyone. That scene was added from the source material taken from Mark. If you want the "true" account of the Passion, it is found in Mark, the oldest of the Gospels.

Why would any Christian want that hurtful line left in? The lie that Jews were responsible for deicide fueled hundreds of years of hatred. Just read Luther's "Of Jews and Their Lies" to get some context on exactly how much hatred was directed at Jews.

[LeahMira]

11. You aren't alone...

Being Jewish, I'm a little skeptical of all the non-Jewish reviews of The Passion and the assurances that it is not anti-Semitic.

The director of our local JCRC said yesterday that he will be going to see the film in order to judge whether or not it is anti-Semitic and to make a statement about it afterwards.

Friends of ours are going to Poland (he is a professor and is doing some research work there), and they are very edgy about the possible reaction from the Catholics in Poland. (Yes, American films are exported to other countries.)

I don't think it's been released to the general public just yet. My impression is that it's to be released around the Christian Ash Wednesday, which would be next week.

Frankly, despite all his pious protestations, I'm pretty sure that Mel Gibson is no friend of the Jewish people. I'll leave it to the leaders in the Jewish community to decide about that. I'm certainly not putting money into Gibson's pockets! Since many of the Christian churches say they'll be showing it, I might consider going to one of their showings and seeing it for free if along with the showing there would be an opportunity to interact with the assembled Christians and to present "the rest of the story." I'll have to see how my husband feels about that idea, though.

[Homer12]

12. Historical Inacuracies

Jesus was not nailed to the cross with his hands, but by his wrists.

I have not seen it but I saw the preview parts. Also, his hand was the one used in the movie to portray the nailing.

I think Gibson has a complex.

[mrfrapp]

18. Complex Question

"Jesus was not nailed to the cross with his hands, but by his wrists."

Even that can't be known for sure as the Romans had several methods of crucifiction. As you mention, one would be to nail through the wrists and the another would be to tie the arms to the crucifix with ropes (variations involve being upside down/right side up, legs splayed/together, depending on the mood of the executionr). The confusion with the hand nailing comes from the fact that the Romans did sometimes do that (to be extra vindictive) but not without ropes supporting the weight of the body. In other words, Jesus may have been nailed by his hands to the cross but unless the film portrays rope-tying also then it would be, as you say, historically inaccurate.

[YNGW]

13. If it sticks to the gospel account...

... I don't see how it could be anti-semitic.

The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus killed because he pointed out their hypocrisy and they feared him because the people thought of him as a prophet which undermined their leadership. For people to blame all Jews for what some Jews desired 2000 years ago seems awful silly. But, if people want a reason to hate other people, they'll find a way.

[ChiefJoseph]

14. I don't see why...

...any Christian would ever hold a grudge against anyone for killing Jesus. After all, according to their faith, Christ's death was necessary for the salvation of mankind. If they (the Jews, the Romans, what have you) hadn't crucified him, we never would have had the opportunity to be "saved" (according to Christian theology).

[Indiana Democrat]

15. Christ HAD to die in order to save us all.

So obviously, SOMEONE had to have been responsible for his death.

All this uproar is much ado about nothing. I am a Christain and as big of a supporter of Israel and the Jewish people as you'll ever find.

[El Supremo]

19. I agree

But isn't it wierd how many Roman Catholics like to blame the Jews for things and many Protestants would rather blame the Catholics? Who do Jews blame?

[newyawker99]

22. Hi El Supremo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tinoire]

16. Here's a balanced site that addresses your question

http://www.mastermediaintl.org/passion/passion.html