Newsweek & The Passion of the Christ
[Another old article, about the Passion of the Christ controversy. That's really what got me started blogging, I guess. Again, spelling and other minor errors corrected from the original.]
As I have previously written, Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ is the most controversial new film to come along in quite some time. It has been hailed by evangelical Christians as a masterpiece, and vilified by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic. Newsweek magazine recently ran an article by Jon Meacham examining the film. I think Newsweek makes some good points, but in the end misses the boat.
One of the first points the article makes is that the phrase "the Jews" used in the gospel accounts does not "mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn." No kidding. When historians talk about the Second World War and say that the Germans did something, they are not referring to all Germans, past, present, and future. They are talking about a general group of Germans whose precise identity is understood from context. To say "the Germans invaded France" is a reference to the German army and the soldiers therein. To say "the Germans moved the Jews onto trains" is a reference to the German police and soldiers who did the moving (and a reference to the Jews who were moved; Jews who lived hundreds of years ago are understood to not be included among those who were moved). So a reference to the generic "Jews" in a context referencing Jewish religious leaders should be taken as a reference to the Jewish leadership only. This is simple linguistics, not exactly earth-shattering.
The crux of the article analyzes the relationship between the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman governor Pilate. Pilate was a ruthless and brutal historical figure, yet he is often portrayed in crucifixion stories as being hesitant and uncertain, unwilling to execute an innocent man. Newsweek's article repeatedly dismisses such a portrayal as inconsistent with the historical figure. Perhaps some or many portrayals are, but are the two views really inconsistent? I don't think so. Even ruthless dictators are subject to the mob, something key to the fictional story of the film Gladiator. We see this fact in history as well. In the late 1930's, Hitler's regime began a program of forced euthanasia on mentally ill Germans. This program evoked widespread objection and opposition, which ultimately forced Hitler to back down and end the program, at least publicly. So we see from history that brutal, bloodthirsty dictators like Pilate can be pressured into doing things they do not particularly want to do. There is no inconsistency there.
Then why would he hesitate to execute Jesus? Because there are two mobs in this story. There is the mob we see on what we now call Good Friday, the mob calling for Jesus' execution. But there is also the mob from a few days prior, who hailed Jesus on His arrival in Jerusalem. We cannot forget about that mob. According to the article, there is a scene in the film between Pilate and his wife where Pilate laments his position, caught between the two mobs. This is a scene of fiction, not included in the gospels, and one may freely question Gibson for including it. But it does present the sticky situation Pilate was in. There were two passionate crowds with contradictory points of view, and Pilate was forced to try to find a way to assuage both. For this reason, he may come across as uncertain and hesitant.
Now, Meacham says that "Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus". True enough. Caiaphas had nothing to gain from a rebellion. But the issue is not Caiaphas. Rather it is the crowd. As I pointed out elsewhere, the most divisive element of Jesus' ministry was He claims to divinity. From a Jewish point of view, this was a very high crime, and, left unpunished, could lead to God's wrath being poured out on them. In their minds, they had an obligation to put Jesus down for such blasphemy. Would Roman authority standing in the way of their service to God represent a motivation for rebellion and resistance? Absolutely. Isn't this one of major the causes of unrest in occupied Iraq, the perception that the US forces are getting between the Muslims and Allah? So, we would expect a very agitated and passionate crowd screaming for Jesus' death, which is what the gospel accounts and Gibson's film give us.
The article also points out that Jesus was executed by the Romans, for sedition. Again, no kidding. Jesus had large following who were hailing Him as the king of the Jews, a claim that would undermine Roman authority. The contemporary expectation was that Messiah would be a warrior leader like David who would throw off the Roman oppression, and Jesus claimed to be Messiah. Therefore, He could have been seen as a revolutionary by the civil (Roman) authorities, whether He wanted to be a revolutionary or not. So, we readily understand that the Romans (not a reference to all men and women from Rome who have ever or will ever live) ultimately executed Him for this reason.
Meacham appears to believe this is a contradiction to the idea that the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead. Jesus was a threat to both the Jewish and Roman authorities. To the Romans, he was a potential claimant to the Davidic throne and a leader who could martial mass support to rebel against Rome. To the Jews (a reference restricted in scope to the Jewish religious leadership at the time), He was a teacher who undermined their authority and their teachings, a man who accused exceedingly religious men of being vipers and of not being in God's good graces, something on which their very personal identities were based. So both groups had an interest in seeing Jesus executed. That the Romans had the actual authority to carry it out is obvious and in accord with Scriptural accounts. So why is this a big issue and how are is the Biblical account so wrong?
Meacham asks the question, "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?". It is a good question. Meacham's answer is that the writers, who were Jewish, wanted to make their story as broadly accessible as possible, so the world conquerors are portrayed better. I think this answer misses the whole point of the Biblical accounts. The writers were Jewish themselves, and the church to which their gospels were originally written was predominantly Jewish at the time, as acknowledged in the article. So, a desire to make the Romans look better does not appear to follow. To the writers, the whole sequence of events was a matter, not of politics, but of religion. Religious elements take center stage throughout the gospels. Therefore, it is logical that the religious dimension of the betrayal and crucifixion would be the paramount concern for the writers, not the political dimension. From this point of view, the Romans, who knew little about the Jewish faith and the Jewish God, would not be expected to understand the magnitude of what they were doing. But the Jewish leaders were rejecting the very Messiah they claimed to be longing for. From a Christian point of view, they were rejecting God Himself, the very God they claimed to love and worship. From this religious point of view, then, the crime of the Jewish leadership was far greater than the crime of the Roman leadership who acted in ignorance. For this reason, Jesus says in John 19:11 that the Jewish leadership has the greater sin. The purpose of this is not "to take a gibe at the Temple elite", at least not for public relations purposes. It is to accentuate the magnitude of what the Jewish leaders were done.
Now, does any of this have any bearing on anti-Semitism. No. Jesus made it clear throughout the gospels that the purpose of His life was to die. He knew what was happening and willingly took it on Himself. Before Pilate, just before saying that His betrayers had a greater sin, He tells Pilate that the only reason He has authority to execute Jesus is because God has given it to him. To worry about who is responsible is to completely miss the point of what was happening. Jesus was executed because He wanted to be. He chose that path. He chose it out of love for you and I, to pay for our sins. Why was He on that cross? Because of the political ambitions of the Jewish and Roman leadership? They may have been the instruments by which God's plan was carried out, but Jesus was on that cross because of you and because of me.
As I have previously written, Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ is the most controversial new film to come along in quite some time. It has been hailed by evangelical Christians as a masterpiece, and vilified by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic. Newsweek magazine recently ran an article by Jon Meacham examining the film. I think Newsweek makes some good points, but in the end misses the boat.
One of the first points the article makes is that the phrase "the Jews" used in the gospel accounts does not "mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn." No kidding. When historians talk about the Second World War and say that the Germans did something, they are not referring to all Germans, past, present, and future. They are talking about a general group of Germans whose precise identity is understood from context. To say "the Germans invaded France" is a reference to the German army and the soldiers therein. To say "the Germans moved the Jews onto trains" is a reference to the German police and soldiers who did the moving (and a reference to the Jews who were moved; Jews who lived hundreds of years ago are understood to not be included among those who were moved). So a reference to the generic "Jews" in a context referencing Jewish religious leaders should be taken as a reference to the Jewish leadership only. This is simple linguistics, not exactly earth-shattering.
The crux of the article analyzes the relationship between the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman governor Pilate. Pilate was a ruthless and brutal historical figure, yet he is often portrayed in crucifixion stories as being hesitant and uncertain, unwilling to execute an innocent man. Newsweek's article repeatedly dismisses such a portrayal as inconsistent with the historical figure. Perhaps some or many portrayals are, but are the two views really inconsistent? I don't think so. Even ruthless dictators are subject to the mob, something key to the fictional story of the film Gladiator. We see this fact in history as well. In the late 1930's, Hitler's regime began a program of forced euthanasia on mentally ill Germans. This program evoked widespread objection and opposition, which ultimately forced Hitler to back down and end the program, at least publicly. So we see from history that brutal, bloodthirsty dictators like Pilate can be pressured into doing things they do not particularly want to do. There is no inconsistency there.
Then why would he hesitate to execute Jesus? Because there are two mobs in this story. There is the mob we see on what we now call Good Friday, the mob calling for Jesus' execution. But there is also the mob from a few days prior, who hailed Jesus on His arrival in Jerusalem. We cannot forget about that mob. According to the article, there is a scene in the film between Pilate and his wife where Pilate laments his position, caught between the two mobs. This is a scene of fiction, not included in the gospels, and one may freely question Gibson for including it. But it does present the sticky situation Pilate was in. There were two passionate crowds with contradictory points of view, and Pilate was forced to try to find a way to assuage both. For this reason, he may come across as uncertain and hesitant.
Now, Meacham says that "Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus". True enough. Caiaphas had nothing to gain from a rebellion. But the issue is not Caiaphas. Rather it is the crowd. As I pointed out elsewhere, the most divisive element of Jesus' ministry was He claims to divinity. From a Jewish point of view, this was a very high crime, and, left unpunished, could lead to God's wrath being poured out on them. In their minds, they had an obligation to put Jesus down for such blasphemy. Would Roman authority standing in the way of their service to God represent a motivation for rebellion and resistance? Absolutely. Isn't this one of major the causes of unrest in occupied Iraq, the perception that the US forces are getting between the Muslims and Allah? So, we would expect a very agitated and passionate crowd screaming for Jesus' death, which is what the gospel accounts and Gibson's film give us.
The article also points out that Jesus was executed by the Romans, for sedition. Again, no kidding. Jesus had large following who were hailing Him as the king of the Jews, a claim that would undermine Roman authority. The contemporary expectation was that Messiah would be a warrior leader like David who would throw off the Roman oppression, and Jesus claimed to be Messiah. Therefore, He could have been seen as a revolutionary by the civil (Roman) authorities, whether He wanted to be a revolutionary or not. So, we readily understand that the Romans (not a reference to all men and women from Rome who have ever or will ever live) ultimately executed Him for this reason.
Meacham appears to believe this is a contradiction to the idea that the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead. Jesus was a threat to both the Jewish and Roman authorities. To the Romans, he was a potential claimant to the Davidic throne and a leader who could martial mass support to rebel against Rome. To the Jews (a reference restricted in scope to the Jewish religious leadership at the time), He was a teacher who undermined their authority and their teachings, a man who accused exceedingly religious men of being vipers and of not being in God's good graces, something on which their very personal identities were based. So both groups had an interest in seeing Jesus executed. That the Romans had the actual authority to carry it out is obvious and in accord with Scriptural accounts. So why is this a big issue and how are is the Biblical account so wrong?
Meacham asks the question, "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?". It is a good question. Meacham's answer is that the writers, who were Jewish, wanted to make their story as broadly accessible as possible, so the world conquerors are portrayed better. I think this answer misses the whole point of the Biblical accounts. The writers were Jewish themselves, and the church to which their gospels were originally written was predominantly Jewish at the time, as acknowledged in the article. So, a desire to make the Romans look better does not appear to follow. To the writers, the whole sequence of events was a matter, not of politics, but of religion. Religious elements take center stage throughout the gospels. Therefore, it is logical that the religious dimension of the betrayal and crucifixion would be the paramount concern for the writers, not the political dimension. From this point of view, the Romans, who knew little about the Jewish faith and the Jewish God, would not be expected to understand the magnitude of what they were doing. But the Jewish leaders were rejecting the very Messiah they claimed to be longing for. From a Christian point of view, they were rejecting God Himself, the very God they claimed to love and worship. From this religious point of view, then, the crime of the Jewish leadership was far greater than the crime of the Roman leadership who acted in ignorance. For this reason, Jesus says in John 19:11 that the Jewish leadership has the greater sin. The purpose of this is not "to take a gibe at the Temple elite", at least not for public relations purposes. It is to accentuate the magnitude of what the Jewish leaders were done.
Now, does any of this have any bearing on anti-Semitism. No. Jesus made it clear throughout the gospels that the purpose of His life was to die. He knew what was happening and willingly took it on Himself. Before Pilate, just before saying that His betrayers had a greater sin, He tells Pilate that the only reason He has authority to execute Jesus is because God has given it to him. To worry about who is responsible is to completely miss the point of what was happening. Jesus was executed because He wanted to be. He chose that path. He chose it out of love for you and I, to pay for our sins. Why was He on that cross? Because of the political ambitions of the Jewish and Roman leadership? They may have been the instruments by which God's plan was carried out, but Jesus was on that cross because of you and because of me.
posted by Doc @ 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home