*
* *
Commentary on Mel Gibson's The Passion
of the Christ
Finally seeing Mel Gibson's film The Passion has confirmed me in my support for
him. The director did not betray the
text of the Gospels, and his film should not be accused of anti-Semitism. Nowhere in the film does one see a
desire to push the narrative toward a condemnation of the Jews as such. If anything, there was a condemnation
of the Temple elite, but I did not see that this elite was meant to stand in
for the Jews as a people. The
reaction of so many in the press is an over-reaction, buttressed by a willful
blindness.
Undoubtedly it is the Ecce homo scene that has given rise to the most
controversy. But viewers with any
political sense will recognize that the mob chanting for Jesus' crucifixion is
a mob called forth by the Sanhedrin: i.e., it is a question here of an elite
caste and its supporters who are calling for Jesus' death, not the Jewish
people as a whole. Later, on the
road to Golgotha, Gibson shows many instances of sympathy for Jesus, most
obviously his portrayal of Simon of Cyrene, the man in the crowd who ordered to
carry Jesus' cross. All those now
crying out about anti-Semitism haven't noticed that here we are made to see an
average Jew who stands up for Jesus against the Roman soldiers tormenting
him. What's more, the scene of
this Jewish man off the street risking his life to stop the brutality of the
Roman soldiers is nowhere in the four Gospels: in short, Gibson has added it of
his own accord. Why does this kind
of directorial touch remain unmentioned the debate about anti-Semitism?
The Passion of the Christ is not a film that demonizes the Jews as
such in its representation of Jesus' death. There is indeed a demon seen in the
film, but it is not the High Priest Caiaphas. Rather it is the Demon himself, with the Antichrist in his
arms. The Jews and Romans who are seen to persecute Jesus, like the misguided
disciple who betrays him, are certainly under the sway of the Demon, but among
them none seems to me more demonized than others. The Roman soldiers torture Jesus out of pure bloodlust and
frustration at their daily hardships in the foreign outpost of Jerusalem; the
Jewish Temple elite want Jesus dead because they sense that he and his
followers don't respect their authority.
In both cases, Gibson would tell us, a clear vision of the man who would
save the world from itself is lost beneath the obstructing shadow of sin. This sin takes the form of bloodlust
for the Romans; of pride and arrogance for the Sanhedrin.
There is an interesting paradox in the representation of
class in the film, and watching it made me realize this latent element in the
Gospels as well. The Roman elite
is shown to be sympathetic to Jesus (a detail whose veracity most historians
doubt) whereas the Roman rank and file are shown treating him brutally. In an absolute reversal of this order,
it is the Jewish elite who want Jesus dead, whereas there is sympathy for him
among the poor. The historical
meaning of this interesting class paradox is open to multiple readings. Most scholars would insist it reflects
the politics of the Gospel writers more than actual events that led to Jesus'
crucifixion. But this is an issue
of dispute that will probably never be resolved. In any event, Gibson's representation of Pilate and the
reasons for his hesitation are more convincing, because more fleshed-out, than
the sketchy portrait we get in the Gospels.
In many scenes The Passion of the Christ is like a medieval painting in
motion. Certainly this particular
aesthetic comes straight from Gibson's ultraconservative Catholicism (he
rejects various reforms of Vatican II).
Just as the crucifixion is one of the most popular themes for medieval
artists, so it is the focus of Gibson's film. Just as many a great medieval work focuses on the terrible
suffering Jesus underwent for our sins, so does Gibson. I am not suggesting here that Gibson
decided to imitate medieval representation in a shallow and aestheticizing
manner: that he began this project with a plan to make a
"medieval-style" film.
Rather to watch The Passion
is to realize that the perception of Christ alive in the Middle Ages is still
alive among some believers. That
the blood of Christ can still be a focus of spiritual meditation as it had been
for so many centuries.
But there is a problem with this film that arises from just
this spirituality of the sacrifice of the Christ. I was eager to see Gibson's film because I wanted to assess
in my own viewing of it how more secularized Western viewers might react to
it. While watching it as a
believer I was also trying to watch it from the point of view of a more secular
person. How does this portrayal of
Jesus look to non-Christians?
In one important respect the question is irrelevant. As a believer with his own spiritual
concerns, Mel Gibson has every right to show us that aspect of the story of
Jesus that he feels is most powerful: the aspect of the Christ that is most
essential in his mind. In much of
the commentary on this film there has been a lamentable lack of respect for the
integrity of the director in his own spiritual and artistic vision. The evident sincerity, dedication and
seriousness of Gibson deserves better.
That said, I have to admit I went to the film hoping to see
a work that would compel a greater understanding of Jesus in the hearts and
minds of secular viewers. Though
not overly confident I can judge the reactions of most people to a work as
striking as this, I suspect there will be scores of thousands of viewers who
leave the film mostly perplexed.
The problem, I think, is one of balance. Sadly there are many moviegoers out there who know little or
nothing of Jesus' life and teachings.
The film should have offered more than an occasional flashback to
present Jesus' life before the arrest.
Many viewers needed to know more of what this man stood for to sense
what it meant for him to walk boldly to his own foreseen execution. Gibson could have done this while still
keeping the film's focus on the Passion--for instance by making more use of
flashbacks in the memories of major characters. Mary Magdalene and Peter could both have provided more such
flashbacks, and a stronger portrait of Jesus' ministry and works could have
been built up. This, I believe,
would have made the film's portrait of the Passion all the more powerful. As it is, the flashbacks grounded in
the memories of his mother Mary are the film's most compelling.
I'll end these remarks the way I began them, with a cry of
"Hats off to Mel Gibson!"
Eric Mader
03/29/04
*
* *
[Does the following correspondence prove wrong some of my
above remarks? Maybe so. I'll leave it to readers to judge. --E.M.]
To: inthemargins03@hotmail.com
Subject: The Movie and other comments.....
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:56:28 EST
Dear Eric:
This time your comments on the movie "The Passion" were very
good. I agreed with you on all
counts except the issue of the Jews.
I definitely felt anger at the Jews when I left the film, and I don't
see anything strange in that. The
Sanhedrin demanded his crucifixtion and the crowd chanted in agreement . . .
and the crowd was Jewish. Yes, one
man carried the cross along with Jesus, but the majority of Jews in the film
wanted his blood shed.
I believe this movie depicted the truth
and if the truth when it is revealed is anti-Semitic in nature then so be
it.
In all, it was an incredible movie. I especially agreed with your comment
regarding the need for more flashbacks of Jesus life as a person with a mission
and a message from God. It could
have won more souls to him.
Sincerely,
David H.
Dear David:
Again you mention this
issue of anti-Semitism. Oddly you
now seem to agree with the movie critics you initially attacked--namely those
who found the film anti-Semitic.
But in your case you say "so be it." I'm puzzled by your attitude.
The scene of the Jewish crowd chanting for crucifixion in
Mel Gibson's recent movie is not "the truth." It is a scene in a movie made 2000
years after the fact and it is based on writings about the arrest and
crucifixion written thirty or forty years after those events by people who
didn't witness them. You cannot
base a judgment of "truth" on such grounds. At least not as regards the events of a trial that
supposedly took place in the form of a public debate between Pilate and a
crowd.
I support Gibson's film but my take on it is quite different
from yours. Your ability to
believe that Gibson's film is some sort of accurate documentary about what
happened 2000 years ago in Jerusalem suggests to me that the Jews aren't all
that wrong to worry the film could lead to anti-Semitism. Why don't you learn to question things
a bit more? Don't you have any
sense of historical distance between yourself and first-century Jerusalem? Our knowledge of the events that
occurred there is sketchy; it is based on the Gospels, archeology, other
historical sources, and painstakingly applied common sense. I don't think even Gibson has the idea
that his film is a perfectly accurate documentary of what happened. His film is an approximation of what
happened. In making it he relies
on the best source we have: the Gospels.
But the Gospels themselves are inspired approximations of what happened,
which I think Gibson himself would recognize. If this were not true, the four Gospels could not disagree
with each other on details, which they often do.
So you left The Passion feeling anger at the Jews. The apostle Peter was one of the Jews in the film. Mary Magdalene was one of the Jews in
the film. These Jews however
accepted Jesus' way, whereas others, apparently most of the Temple elite, did not.
My point is simple: In the
Gospels it is not a question of two ethnic groups, Jews and Christians, who are
at odds. During Jesus' life we
cannot speak of the Christians as a group really distinct from the Jews. The movement led by Jesus was something
happening within the Jewish community, within Judaism even. Just as many of the Jews of
first-century Jerusalem did not accept Jesus, so many Americans today don't
accept him. Which is
unfortunate. But that many
Americans don't accept Jesus doesn't lead you to "feel anger" at the
Americans, does it? My point is
that any ethnic group, Jews, Romans or Americans, is going to have those who
recognize the Spirit, and those who don't.
The chanting out of
"Crucify Him!" is not something that happened only on that fateful
day in ancient Jerusalem. Rather
it is something that goes on continually.
We all add our voices to it.
To recognize this is of the essence of Christianity. To miss this fact is to be outside
Christianity, to be seeking always to find the speck in our neighbors' eyes.
Try as you might, you haven't convinced me that Gibson's
film is anti-Semitic. You've
convinced me rather that the anti-Semitism in such a work is mainly in the eye
of the beholder.
Warmly,
Eric
*
* *
[Earlier correspondence on the question of history in the
Gospels and in Gibson's film. An
email forward followed by a reply:]
02/12/04: Received the following as an
email forward
Comments on "The Passion" by Mel
Gibson
The majority of the media are complaining
about this movie. Now Paul Harvey tells "the rest of the story," and
David Limbaugh praises Gibson. Most people would wait and see a movie before
giving the reviews that have been issued by the reporters trying to tell all of
us what to believe.
Paul Harvey's words:
I really did not know what to
expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel
Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious
articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith
journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything
that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language
or actions. I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held
in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically
Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond
you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced,
without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in
the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly
ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of
the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until
the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an
encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
In addition to being a
masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked
more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything
since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will
never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only"
gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking
indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the
place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily
silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had
experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven
touch earth. One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A
brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross.
His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she
flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside
of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now
reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely
probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and
said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the
last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose
of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so
difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became
intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.
At the end of the film, after we had all had a
chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise
for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments
were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow
this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this
film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now
experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it
is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat
in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this
film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely
presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It
made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a
scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there
were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel
story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those
who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda
behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the
sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of
Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all
men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic
Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is
no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that
we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After
all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is
for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.
We would all be well advised to remember that
the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were
written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have
forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but
those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution
is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love
that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should
be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make
sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
You will be as well. Don't miss it! Next is a commentary by David Limbaugh
about Gibson's movie. It, too, is
well worth reading.
MEL GIBSON'S passion for "THE
PASSION"
How ironic that when a movie producer takes
artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative
and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life
story, he is vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering these truths
the hard way as he is having difficulty finding a United States studio or
distributor for his upcoming film, "The Passion," which depicts the
last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ.
Gibson co-wrote the script and financed,
directed and produced the movie. For the script, he and his co-author relied on
the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the
diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's
"The City of God." Gibson doesn't want this to be like other
sterilized religious epics. "I'm trying to access the story on a very
personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to
realistically portraying what many would consider the most important half-day
in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the Aramaic
language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will not be able
to understand that language, Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be able to
transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I fail, I fail,
but at least it'll be a monumental failure." To further ensure the
accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and
theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of Focus on
the Family, said: "I was very impressed. The movie is historically and
theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in
Colorado Springs, Colorado, and president of the National Evangelical Association,
glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, what Jesus
was."
During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic,
attended Mass every morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just
working on this." From Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel
Gibson. It's bigger than he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a
pastor," he said. "But I really feel my career was leading me to make
this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just
directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize."
Even before the release of the movie,
scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked
on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting
to Christianity... [And] people being healed of diseases." Gibson wants
people to understand through the movie, if they don't already, the incalculable
influence Christ has had on the world. And he grasps that Christ is
controversial precisely because of WHO HE IS -- GOD incarnate." And that's
the point of my film really, to show all that turmoil around him politically
and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is Who He is."
Gibson is beginning to experience first hand
just how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged
the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews,
which Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian vs. Jewish
thing. [Jesus] came into the
world, and it knew him not.
Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in
that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into
Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco
added: "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel Gibson is
anti-Semitic." Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream
press have been very critical of Gibson's "Passion."
The New York Post's Andrea Peyser chided him:
"There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth." Boston Globe columnist
James Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical accounts.
"Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus
can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of
Jew hatred," wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian academics has
issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue
emphasis on Christ's passion rather than "a broader vision." The
report disapproves of the movie's treatment of Christ's passion as historical fact.
The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ,
make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with
no particular redeeming value. In our anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous
"The Last Temptation of Christ" is celebrated and "The
Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to affect people the
way it is now, no amount of cultural opposition will suppress its force and its
positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel Gibson is a model of faith and
courage.
Send these commentaries to as many people as
you can. We want as many people as
possible to see this film!
* * *
Response:
WAITING TO SEE MEL GIBSON'S "THE PASSION"
I haven't read much about The Passion, but from what I've read so far I'd have
to say: "Hats off to Mel Gibson!" It's good to know at least one major figure in the film
industry has faith enough to dedicate himself to a production like this. Contemporary Western film culture has
become far too secular, to the point of ignoring the faith of much of the
filmgoing audience. Hopefully
Gibson's new film will help put many in touch with the Christian message.
But why are people claiming that a movie based on the
Gospels is anti-Semitic? This is a
thorny issue, one that's not very easy to address. One of the articles you forwarded is right to point out that
the many crimes perpetrated against the Jews are not a result of Jesus' teachings, but rather
of the evil in men's hearts. On
the other hand, it has long been obvious that many in the press and academia
are too quick to raise cries of anti-Semitism: they've grown too willing to
find anti-Semitism where it isn't to be found.
Besides which, one might easily point out that the Jewish
scriptures themselves contain much that can be construed as promoting
genocide. One need only consult
the gruesome book of Joshua to see how true this is. So how is it that modern Jews think they are called upon to
criticize the Christian Gospels?
The Bible tells us that the Israelites returning to the Promised Land
massacred whole towns to the last man, woman and child. This is what is recorded in Jewish
sacred writ. So whose scriptures
promote hatred and violence? Is it
not true that in the recent fifty years many Muslim and Christian Palestinians
have been driven from their land by overly zealous Jews wielding an ideology
gotten in part from just these scriptural books?
But to return to the Gospels and anti-Semitism. There are various points to note
here. I will list them as best I
can.
First: the remarks you forwarded praise Gibson for basing
his film on the Gospel accounts, the implication being that Gibson, unlike
other novelists or film directors, tells the story of Jesus like it actually
happened. By following the Gospels, Gibson is
understood to be true to history itself. In The
Passion, Gibson has not
promoted some sacrilegious tale along the lines of The Last Temptation of
Christ--no, he has told
it like it really was. But consider the following.
On the third day after Jesus' crucifixion, when one or more
than one of his followers returned to find Jesus' tomb empty, we know very well
that they encountered angels there.
Or did they? Let's consider
the Gospels themselves.
1) Mark, the earliest Gospel, tells us that Mary Magdalene
and two others went to the tomb, found it empty, and entered the tomb. Inside the tomb they were greeted by a
mysterious young man who told them that Jesus had risen.
2) Matthew, written after Mark, tells us that Mary Magdalene
and one other woman went to the tomb, where they were greeted by an angel who
came down from heaven, rolled away the stone before their eyes, and told them
that Jesus had risen.
3) Luke, written after Matthew, doesn't specify how many
women went to the tomb, but says that there they met "two men in clothes
that gleamed like lightning," presumably angels. The men told them Jesus was risen.
4) John, written after Luke, tells us that Mary Magdalene
went to the tomb alone, that she saw "two angels" inside the empty
tomb, and that, turning around, she saw the risen Jesus himself, who told her:
"Do not lay a hand on me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."
To summarize:
In Mark three women went to the tomb, which they entered to
find "a young man."
In Matthew two women went to the tomb, where an angel came
down from heaven, rolled away the stone, and told them Jesus had risen.
In Luke a number of women went to the tomb and met two
angels.
In John only one woman went to the tomb, where she saw two
angels and then Jesus.
I am a Christian myself, and study the Bible
continuously. As a lifelong
student of literature, I also would insist that the Bible contains some of the
most powerful writing we have.
What's more, I know that the Gospels are the best historical source we
have for the life of the most important person in history. But I am not an idiot. I could never insist on the "literal
truth" of the Gospels because I can see as clear as day that the different
texts give conflicting accounts.
And this isn't only in terms of what happened; it's true as well as
regards what Jesus said and when he said it. (Matthew's version of the Beatitudes is different from
Luke's, the parables are different in different Gospels, etc., etc.)
And so: it's obvious to me as a Christian that the Gospel
accounts are approximations. They are accounts based on oral
record. The Gospels were written
at least decades after Jesus' ministry and represent the memory of what
happened according to four different writers who came from different
communities of early Christians.
At the time the Gospels
were written, the relations between orthodox Jews, Jewish Christians and
Gentile Christians were particularly strained. The Christian community, needless to say, was entirely
Jewish to begin with, and then, as the decades passed, came to include more and
more Gentiles. But most scholars
of the period and most New Testament scholars can now see that by the time the
Gospels were written many of the followers of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile,
had come to see themselves as trapped between the Jewish roots of the new faith
on the one hand, and the political power of the Roman Empire on the other. Jewish Christians were rejected by
their own people, Gentiles Christians were seen as a threat by traditional Jews
(they were taking converts from the ranks of the the Gentile group known as the
God-Fearers) and both Jews and Christians found themselves in conflict with
Rome. Trying to appease Roman
power, and in conflict with Jewish religious authorities, the early Christian
community steadily came to place more and more blame for the execution of Jesus
on the traditional Jewish religious authorities: the Temple elite in
Jerusalem. This process is
reflected in the writing of the Gospels.
In contrast to the portrayal of the Jewish authorities in
the Gospels, Pilate, the Roman prefect, comes off as actually wanting to set
Jesus free. Thus we are to
understand that the Roman imperialist governor Pilate would have saved the
popular peasant leader Jesus if only the "Jews" hadn't been so
thirsty for his blood. Most
scholars find this highly unlikely, and for good reason. Any apocalyptic leader of the poor such
as Jesus would have been seen as an enemy of Roman law and order. It is thus very likely that Roman and
Jewish authorities together bear responsibility for Jesus' execution: they
would have both had reasons to want such a figure dead.
The Christian community at the time of the writing of the
Gospels was engaged in a difficult political polemic, one that was full of
troubling ambiguities. The rest of
the New Testament bears this out.
The early Christians were trying to find their identity under the Roman
Empire and against the more orthodox Jews. Many of these Christians were still Jews but not quite Jews:
they were being rejected by their fellow Jews, and more and more of their
community were Gentiles. It is
very understandable that the story of Jesus' passion, once it came to be
written down, would paint the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob of
Jerusalem in the worst possible light.
During the Middle Ages and later we know that mobs of
Christians would occasionally go forth to murder whole Jewish communities,
chanting "Kill the Christ killers!" and other such slogans. If at that time one would have stood up
and told the mob that Jesus himself was Jewish one would certainly have been
added to the pile of dead. Like it
or not, the Gospel accounts penned so many centuries earlier are the reason such
massacres were possible. In other
words, a kind of anti-Jewishness is latent in the Gospels: there is a theme of
conflict with the Jewish religious authorities that can be exaggerated in times
of crisis and pushed toward what we know as anti-Semitism. Such anti-Semitism is something that
small-minded people have seized upon as an excuse to attack their
neighbors. Certainly the Gospel
writers themselves could never have imagined that centuries later in countries
far far away people would use their writings about Jesus as a justification for
mob violence of the most hateful kind.
But the fact is that it has happened repeatedly, and it is no good for
us to pretend it hasn't.
Probably it's a mistake to consider Mel Gibson's film
anti-Semitic. Even so, to be
faithful to the Gospels is already to call forth images that could be used to buttress
anti-Semitism. This is doubtless
why people are criticizing Gibson's choices as a director. I don't side with the critics, but I
also believe educated Christians should be aware of the Gospels as fallible
documents that cannot give a foolproof account of Jesus' life.
The Gospels are our best source for the life and teachings
of Jesus, but they also contain much that comes from religious and political
debates that were raging in the decades when they were written. One could put it another way: In each
of the Gospels we see Jesus through a kind of circus mirror. If we want to understand the true
Jesus, we should try to understand the shape of the mirrors we're looking
through.
I believe we are lucky to have a Scripture that gives us
four conflicting accounts of the most important things in our religion. Such a Scripture should teach us not to
put too much faith in accounts: not to trust the letter as much as the spirit. I've sometimes even thought our four
conflicting accounts are part of God's plan--as if God wanted us to see clearly
that we're not meant to see things too clearly.
Eric Mader
02/12/04
Email: inthemargins03@hotmail.com
---------