The Passion Conspiracy: Did the Jews Kill Christ or was Jesus the Victim of Identity Theft?
by Randy Weiss, Ph.D.
CHAPTER XVIPASSIONATE ABOUT THE PASSION?
Are you passionate about the passion? I mean that in the richest sense. Are you passionate about the contemporary passion film by Mel Gibson? Are you passionate about the actual passion of the Christ? Are you passionate about God's love and His passion to draw people to Himself? Or are you just reading this because you wondered whether a Jewish man who believes in Jesus would give the film a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" review? If that is your concern, I gave the film both. I loved the film and I hated the film. Those of you who read the Prologue to a Jewish Guy's Concerns About The Passion of the Christ already knew that. It was too complex to limit to one emotion.
This chapter was saved for till now because the patterns of error in earlier passion play presentations appear to have informed certain elements of the script used by the contemporary film. Please do not presume that I am suggesting the scriptwriter, or the producer, or any of the consultants to the production plagiarized or even viewed other passion play presentations. I have no way of knowing that. Though I assume from the typical pattern displayed, they must have been aware of what audiences expect and provided the required heroes and villains. I am definitely suggesting that important elements of the drama were presented through the eyes of individuals who had been influenced by the same incorrect interpretations evidenced in the earlier dramas described in this book. These same incorrect interpretations are what have led to the massive public outcry against the film by many Jewish leaders. Their concerns are not unwarranted. Polls "indicate that one quarter of professed Christians in the U.S. support the charge of deicide against the Jews." 286
The film has recorded both stunning successes and failures, if these can be measured by the extreme impact it has had on audiences. The intensity of the presentation apparently caused the pastor of the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church to advertise the unloving sign on his church marquis that boldly declared, "Jews killed the Lord Jesus." On the other end of the spectrum, it was reported that the film had such a positive impact on one viewer that he went to the police and confessed to having committed a murder that had been previously ruled as a suicide. Perhaps the pastor got the innuendo in the anti-Semitic pattern of the film-the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. Whereas the murderer got the message-Jesus suffered as our atonement--forgiveness is available. Letters to editors around the nation exploded in columns proving that viewers were both elevated and depreciated. Faith was built in many lives and faith was assaulted in many lives.
There is no doubt that when compared to recent attempts to present the life of Jesus in blasphemous terms, this film was obviously driven by a desire to reveal the divine nature of Jesus-a perfect revelation of God's perfect love. I was extremely gratified to hear of one outstanding Jewish man, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, who spoke out on behalf of the film. He appropriately made the comparison to The Last Temptation of Christ and scolded those opponents of Mr. Gibson's film who failed to speak out against the blasphemy of the Last Temptation or The Priest. He wisely reminded angry Jewish critics that their voice was lost in this matter if they refused to speak out against prior films that blasphemed Christianity. It was hypocritical of some Jewish critics to defend films that publicly mocked Jesus under the guise of free speech, then attempt to censure Mr. Gibson due to their dislike of the film. Constitutional rights cut both ways. It is not limited to the purview of those who want to demean the Christian faith. Christians have the same right to declare what they believe as boldly as others might voice their disbelief. This film is a strong declaration about the faith of Mr. Gibson. His faith was well represented and it had the desired positive effect on countless throngs of spectators. Perhaps the filming of The Passion of the Christ serves to remind us that Christianity is not a spectator sport.
Actors on the set declared that their participation in the project deepened their faith and brought them closer to God. Some were reportedly struck by lightning and lived to tell about it. Mr. Gibson also was touched in many ways during the filming of his epic (and I do believe this is a proper term to describe this marvelous cinematic presentation of the suffering of Jesus Christ.) The cast had the opportunity to enjoy Catholic Mass every morning during the creation of the film. Mr. Gibson felt this important because, "We had to be squeaky clean just working on this." 287 My personal view differs from Mr. Gibson in that I believe our efforts to get clean through religious activities are insufficient. Rather, it seems to me that Jesus brings His righteousness to the party and thus, He provides the atonement. It is exclusively thereby that we can be "squeaky clean" in the sight of God through the sacrifice revealed in the film. Of course, that is just a Jewish Protestant's spin on the theological gap that differentiates Mr. Gibson and me.
As I declared above, I had mixed emotions about the film. I am like the fella who had one hand stuck in a pot of boiling water and the other buried in a bucket of ice. When asked how he was feeling, he answered, "On the average, I'm fine." The movie touched me too deeply to be just fine. My feelings are informed by my love for the Messiah with a deep appreciation for what He endured on my behalf. Yet my views are also invested in the centuries of suffering endured by my people due to the accusation of deicide resulting from the wrong interpretations of passion presentations. Therefore, in seeking the views of others, I looked beyond the local and regional opinions.
I was interested in how my people in Israel responded to news about the film. There was an immediate outcry against the film and it was banned in Israel. As one might expect, many Jews in Israel had more global concerns. There were many who rightly expected much of the Muslim world to embrace the film in spite of their blatant religious rejection of the Crucifixion. Islam promotes an odd view that Jesus was not crucified, and that rather, someone else was executed in place of Jesus. However, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat viewed the film at his West Bank compound with some Catholic leaders. One of his aides reported that Arafat was quick to compare the suffering of Jesus to the suffering of the Palestinians. According to the April 9, 2004, edition of The Christian Science monitor, an aide reported Arafat said, "The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion." Obviously, both were alleged to be at the hands of the wicked Jews. This was the emotion stimulated among many Muslim viewers. And there were very, very many viewers in the Arab world. That same article reported, "The Passion of the Christ, is breaking box office records across the Middle East . . . posting record sales in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Qatar, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates." Some Muslims have chosen to equate the death of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin with the Jewish call for execution that killed Jesus. Of course the difference should be obvious. Jesus was a Jew who gathered a peaceful, godly, loving group of tender disciples and He gave His life to buy our freedom. The sheikh was the founder of Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying Jews.
KRON, channel 4-TV reported that a Muslim viewer in Jordan believed the film "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews." However, some Muslims will not be allowed to see the film. Some Islamic nations banned the movie in theatres because it was deemed to violate Islamic sharia (religious laws). One Muslim regulation forbids the depiction of the prophets of Islam. Jesus is considered to be such a prophet and therefore the film was considered unacceptable. At the time of this publication, Kuwait was still debating the issue. A significant argument raged between Sunni Muslims who opposed the airing and Shiite Muslims who favored permitting the film to seen. Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, a top Shiite cleric in Kuwait requested their government make an exception to permit the Mr. Gibson's film to air because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ." On the other hand, Bahrain and Malaysia adhered to their beliefs that it was wrong to release a film showing a prophet. Therefore, they did not permit the airing in their nations.
In contradistinction to all the negative propaganda generated by the film in Islamic nations, the power of the Word of God should never be devalued or underestimated. It was very exciting that some Arabic-speaking people found a connection to the Aramaic language spoken in much of the film. The film also posed a wonderful new opportunity to counter the false teaching about Jesus that is common throughout Islam. This film presented a unique opportunity for many Muslims around the world to learn about important aspects of the New Testament that have been hidden from them. Many were completely unfamiliar with those aspects of the life of Jesus addressed in the film. I am confident that as a result, many Muslims who had never heard the true Gospel will be touched and changed by the powerful presentation of God's love expressed in the depiction of the suffering of Jesus. Let us pray that millions of Muslims find the true Jesus of the New Testament as a result of Mr. Gibson's effort. The film boldly declares the love of God revealed in Christ and I would encourage every Islamic person to see the film and reach their own conclusion.
Though I am fascinated with the Muslim response to the film, I must return to the concerns shared by Israelis. They are typically quite well informed about issues that impact Jews around the world. They are also very sensitive about developments that have the potential to create added tensions for Jewish people living in non-Jewish areas. It is for this reason that Israeli critics have been very vocal about their views on the film. They resent Mr. Gibson's implications if you attack the film, "you attack the Scriptures themselves." 288 It is often not the film in particular that is at issue. Rather, it is the results of previous examples of similar presentations in Church history that concern Jews. Many of the critics have not seen the film. Nonetheless, they are aware of the atrocities committed by Church folk after passion plays had been presented in other eras. Christian scholar Bernard E. Olsen was quoted by The Jerusalem Report saying, "The crucifixion drama is regarded . . . as having played a prominent part in Jewish disabilities through the centuries as well as providing a major cause of negative attitudes towards Jews today." 289 The problem is neither new nor unknown. It is simply ignored by those who wish to believe it does not exist. Jewish writers in Israel are quite correct in their assessment of the danger.Throughout history, mainly in medieval Europe, the passion plays' powerful evocation of the deicide charge sparked violent outbursts against Jews, so powerful that passion plays were banned in Rome in 1539 because they were regularly followed by murderous raids on the Jewish ghetto. 290
Are the Jewish critics from Israel over-reacting? Consider this: Hitler returned to enjoy the Passion Play at Oberammergau during its run in 1942. He spoke to the "adoring masses and stressed a direct link between his vision and the tradition of the plays. Quoting Matthew 27:25, 'his blood be on us and on our children,' Hitler said, 'Maybe I'm the one who must execute this curse . . . I do no more than join what has been done for more than 1,500 years already. Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!' " 291 From there, it became well known that Hitler began using multi-media presentations to educate his constituency about the changes he brought to Germany.
The Nazi regime utilized anti-Semitic movies in a way similar to that in which the passion plays were utilized for centuries, with similar, if far more terrible results . . . those movies were used as a propaganda piece and were screened to the Einsatzgruppen before they were sent out to kill Jews. 292
The film has been both praised and panned by film critics, letters to the editor, rabbis, priests, pastors, Christians, Jews, and most flavors of religious folk in between. My synagogue (a Reform Temple) presented a lecture on "How to Respond to the Passion of the Christ: A Training Session." I love my rabbi and look forward to discussing his views on this book after I can give him a copy. We disagree about the messiahship of Jesus, but I assume we will find much in common about the history of the genre of passion dramas.
I think it fair to say that my rabbi and I might both enjoy some of the works of Mel Gibson. I also think we would find agreement on Mr. Gibson's troublesome handling of his father's alleged Holocaust denial. I believe he could have resolved the matter with much less controversy. For example, millions of people across the nation saw the Diane Sawyer interview with Mr. Gibson. When asked about his father's Holocaust denial, the reply was rather abrupt, "Leave it alone." 293 Certainly more could have been said to diffuse the problem. His father, Hutton Gibson, has made his views well known. They are in the public eye. Had they been kept private, it would not be necessary to comment, but this cat is out of the bag and there is no chance to put it back under wraps. "In a recent radio interview, the elder Gibson repeated his contention that the Holocaust was 'all-maybe not all fiction-but most of it is'." 294 The media helped promote the terrible lie of Holocaust denial by promoting the skewed beliefs of Mel Gibson's father. Will the sins of the father be shared with the son? It seems possible if the lie is not renounced. One cannot sugarcoat this poison pill and expect it to be swallowed without grave consequences. The film was too popular. The producer was too popular. And now, the sinful view of his father has been made too popular.
Gibson was interviewed by Peggy Noonan of Reader's Digest. He was asked a very straightforward question. "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened right?" 295 It would seem to me that the obvious correct answer would have been a very simple, "YES!" Instead, he launched into a story about knowing people with numbers on their arms. He spoke of many atrocities of the war and suffering by a variety of people groups. This depreciates the uniqueness of the Nazi Holocaust. It also equates it to a laundry list of human ills. I agree with his analysis. However, he never just said, "YES, the Holocaust happened. Six million Jews died in the genocide." Perhaps he has said this in other venues. I hope so. I can appreciate his unwillingness to disassociate with his father. However, he can love his father and disassociate himself from his father's errant views.
Of course I realize that one's view of the Passion of the Christ is justifiably influenced by one's view of the New Testament. Jewish people that deny the validity of the account in the Gospel narratives tend to reject the awesome quality of the film's presentation revealing the love of God depicted in the suffering of Jesus. They often shift focus to the terrible violence levied against the hero of the story brought about by the villains--the Jews. In contrast, Christians who believe the New Testament, find the love of God revealed in the film's dramatic expression of that love through the suffering endured by the hero--Jesus. Hence, this is why Christians tend to respond positively to the violence and Jews often respond negatively to the same suffering. Christians saw the love of God expressed through the identical vehicle in which the Jews saw the presumed hatred of our people against the love God. It should not be difficult to understand why the Jews feel like the villains. It is also easy to identify why they were presented as the twisted, bloodthirsty, inhumane enemies of the hero. Dramas need heroes and villains. Greater heroes and worse villains create more intense drama. Many people were touched by the love of God shown in the voluntary suffering of Jesus. Many people were also touched by the hatred of the enemies of God (the Jews) shown in the film. Is there any question as to why the film has polarized so many Jews and Christians? An honest appraisal of the film requires one to admit that the Jews and the Romans shared equally in the crime. Both peoples were cast in a despicable light. But I must point out that all of the Roman soldiers are long gone. Only Jewish people remain alive and cognizant of the tendency to be stigmatized.
It is disturbing that many Christian leaders dismissed the negative impact that this film has had on Jewish people. It is more disturbing that many Christian leaders ignored this aspect of the film's impact while praising the film in the media. It is most disturbing that they ignored this impact and acted as though they were incredulous that anyone could find anything in the film that might be anti-Semitic. This behavior is disingenuous or dangerously uninformed. It is particularly troublesome because the Jewish critics are so much better informed about the basic historical issues surrounding the passion play than most Christian leaders.
And with these comments now on the record, permit me to recount a few reflections from my experience viewing the film. Many of these thoughts are merely observations and should not be taken as criticisms. I will be clear about that which I found to be troublesome.Thumbs up & down: the film review by one Jewish guy
I enjoyed the opening Scripture selected from Isaiah 53. This important section of the Hebrew Bible is most enlightening when evaluating messianic texts from the Jewish Scriptures. Though many modern Jews reject the messianic implications of Isaiah 53, it is clearly a messianic prophecy and was regarded so by many ancient rabbis. It is also a section of the Bible intentionally left out during the weekly Jewish Bible readings. In other words, this text, though clearly canonical and messianic, is never heard during standard synagogue Bible readings. Therefore, it is probably not often heard or read by many Jews. As such, it represented one of the finest text selections the producer could have chosen to impact both Jews and Gentiles in his effort to present Christ as the "Suffering Servant." Christians rightly believe Jesus is the subject of that messianic prophecy declared by Isaiah more than 700 years before Christ.
The scene in the garden certainly took liberties with the Bible but it was handled quite tastefully. I particularly enjoyed the added element of the snake in the scene. The producer powerfully called to mind the first snake in the first garden. That snake succeeded in helping remind the audience about the first human sin. The snake in the film was treated as a fulfillment of a prophecy in Genesis given to Adam and Eve. It was a very dramatic enactment to see the "seed" of the woman crush the snake with His foot.
I was deeply saddened by the costume selected for Jesus. It was troublesome that He was not wearing the customary fringed garment or prayer shawl. This was the most intense prayer of His life, yet He was presented as having disobeyed the commands of both Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12. Both texts clearly demand that observant Jewish men wear tzitzit (fringes) in the corners of their garments. The Jewish custom remains the same today. This is one of the primary reasons why many Jewish men wear prayer shawls in synagogue and other worship situations. It is also why some Jewish men wear a smaller version under their clothes with only the fringes exposed. Jesus would not have sinned by ignoring this standard Jewish practice or donned the robes of a non-Jew. Of course, having seen a variety of prior passion dramas, my fears about this matter were quickly confirmed. Not only was Jesus portrayed as "non-Jewish" by His apparel, His sleeping disciples were also not wearing the garments of observant Jews. Then as expected, when a character was finally seen wearing the fringed clothes of a Jew, it was the typical enemies of Jesus who were portrayed as Jews and dressed according to standard Jewish practice. This is the same pattern of other passion dramas. The Jewish enemies are clad in a fashion so as to identify the villains as Jews. The Jewish Messiah, the Jewish disciples, and the Jewish supporters of Jesus are stripped of the outward appearance of their Jewishness. A false image was therefore created. It was as if the heroes and the villains were not all equally Jewish-they were!
I do not agree with the assumption of the producer that Satan was at the garden prayer vigil. Nor do I agree that Satan was aware of the true plan of God for the Crucifixion. In fact, it seems to me that if Satan had been previously cognizant of the results of the Resurrection, instead of possessing Judas to betray Jesus to the wicked priests, Satan would have possessed Johnny Cochran to insure Jesus had the best defense lawyer possible.
Since the film's phenomenal financial success, I have heard many negative comments about Mr. Gibson's motives for making the film. I have seen several critical cartoons implying that he had a greedy profit motive. I believe those rude implications to be completely absurd and probably rooted in jealousy. Nobody in their right mind would invest $30,000,000.00 to produce an entire film in dead languages for a theatrical release to people who could not understand the dialogue. I reject all of those accusations against Mr. Gibson. How many films with subtitles have ever made a profit when the actresses wore all of their clothes in every scene? No, I am convinced that Mr. Gibson's motives were pure. However, due to the film's dialogue being spoken exclusively in ancient languages (Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew), most viewers probably missed one of the most beautiful nuances of the filmmaker's technique. I was deeply touched by the scene of Mary being troubled in the night. She woke up simultaneously as Jesus was being arrested in the garden. Mary was startled and cried out the following Hebrew words: "Ma'nishtanah ha'lailah ha'zeh meecall ha'layloat." These words are translated as, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" This famous sentence was lifted directly from one of the central sections of the Jewish Passover Seder.
A few hours earlier, the same words would have been spoken verbatim during the "Last Supper" when the Feer Kashas--Four Questions were recited. These questions have been asked and answered by Jews at every Passover seder around the world since the time of Moses. Just as Mary may have taught Jesus those words when He was a small boy, she recited them that night prior to His death when she awoke terrified because her son was being arrested to suffer and die for our deliverance.
Mary then made reference to the Avodeem Chayeenu. "We" were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt. This familiar Passover recitation creates a first person connection to "our" slavery in Egypt and "our" deliverance discussed in the Exodus account. Jews of every era personally identify with the slaves. We participate in the event of God's miraculous redemption as we celebrate the festival commanded in Scripture.
These unmistakable analogies from the Jewish celebration were probably lost to the uninitiated non-Jewish viewers. It is unfortunate that these positive inclusions of the script were not better explained in the film because there were many other less desirable emotions stirred by other powerful images that should have been cut from the editor's final version. Nevertheless, hidden in that brief screen exchange is the urgent connection between our Passover deliverance from the temporal slavery to Egypt and that eternal deliverance from slavery to sin that Christ won for us by His death and Resurrection. In that moment, the film's depth was more powerful and positive than I can adequately describe.
Immediately thereafter, the Jewish soldiers were seen beating Jesus as they walked from the garden back to His trial before the priests. Along the walk, these soldiers threw Jesus over a wall and allowed a chain that bound Him to break His fall. There is no biblical record of such an event. It was extremely brutal and would have likely broken His back. The portrayal was an unnecessary and a particularly brutal scene from the filmmaker's imagination. But it was the scene that followed that troubled me more than most.
As recorded in the Scriptures, false witnesses had been hired to speak against Jesus. They were testifying before the Sanhedrin in a mock trial at the home of Caiaphas, the High Priest. The room was jammed with perhaps as many as 100-150 people gathered to convict Jesus before the Jewish council. In reality, the quantity of people on hand was probably much smaller than was depicted in the film. It seemed that only two stood up to question the manner in which the "trial" was being handled. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were presumably the two friends of Jesus at that gathering. As mentioned earlier in this research, it is also possible that they were not even present at the gathering. It is very likely that only a quorum of the Sanhedrin attended. The obvious supporters of Jesus would have likely been overlooked when the invitations were made. The scene could have certainly been handled in a less antagonistic fashion if there was a sincere desire to avoid alienating Jewish viewers. For example, the scene included what appeared to be a mindless idiot enthused at the thought of killing Jesus. The character reminded me of what the angry offspring of the Hunchback of Notre Dame might have looked like if Quasimoto had married Lizzie Borden. I guess the producer thought it added color. I think it added another bitter pill for Jewish viewers to swallow.
For the record, I do accept the basic premise of the scene. There is no doubt that a mock trial occurred. I also allow for the possibility that the sentiments of the Jewish leaders (and the false witnesses bribed to speak at their pleasure) were angry and bitter. However, I thoroughly reject the idea that the main body of Jews were committed to the destruction of Jesus. It is my firm belief that most Jewish people would have refused to take part in any such effort. Yet in spite of my dissatisfaction with the size of the crowd inside, it was the activity outside that I found to be most disconcerting. It was certainly one of the more awkward moments for me to watch as a Jewish viewer. I was appalled at the magnitude of the crowd that had gathered in the courtyard outside the home. The presentation of the mock trial of Jesus was typical of passion dramas. Certain dramatic elements of the scene could have been less inflammatory without detracting from the film's message. There is no record of a bustling crowd in the courtyard. I believe the scene outside the house of the High Priest was greatly exaggerated. It was visually easy to follow the growing crowd. A small group of angry Jews joined a growing powerful bandwagon of other angry Jews leading to their hateful demand of the brutal execution of Jesus. Yet the Gospel according to Matthew presents a very different encounter. The Bible suggests a significantly smaller gathering inside attended by "the chief priests, and elders, and all the council" (Matthew 26:59). There were certainly "false witnesses" also present according to verse 60. But it was primarily the crowd outside that appears to be a fabrication.
During my third viewing of the film, when I reached that scene I could not avoid reflecting on a trip I had taken with my wife. In October 2001, I hosted a tour to Israel. Everyone was quite concerned about conditions in the Middle East immediately following September 11, 2001. Likewise, many people were afraid to visit New York City after the debacle at the World Trade Center. Up until that time, my wife and I had never visited the Big Apple. We decided that we should pay our respects and show our support to New Yorkers by staying in downtown New York City for a few days prior to departing for Israel. While there, we decided to go to the very first stage play we had ever attended. We went to see The Music Man (it was wonderful). We also had the privilege of attending Times Square Church and seeing Pastor David Wilkerson (it was even more wonderful). In prior years, I had been somewhat intimidated by the thought of going to New York City. However, our few days there after September 11 were very meaningful. I do recall being quite stunned walking around Times Square very late at night. The lights were amazing. The buildings were amazing. But one could not help but notice that a city that never sleeps seemed to be asleep. There were no perpetual crowds milling around. In fact, there were no crowds! The hustle and bustle of daytime was gone. The streets were quiet and the sidewalks abandoned. It was as though everything was shut down but the lights.
More recently, my wife and I had to go to Chicago on some business. We had an extra day in town so we stayed at a hotel in the Loop and visited a friend. We had enjoyed our first stage play in New York so much so that we decided to find a cheap pair of tickets to see a late night performance of "Beauty and the Beast." The Chicago weather was mild that night so we decided to walk back to our hotel after the play. It was near midnight and the trek required us to walk about as far as eight blocks traversing through the very heart of downtown Chicago. I was astounded at how quiet it was. The streets were empty. We were quite alone. It seemed that the only the folks out were those leaving the theatre.
The two personal stories just related were not rabbit trails. I have personally walked the streets of two of the most heavily populated metropolitan areas in America after midnight. I can only assume that if I had walked those same streets after 3:00 in the morning (closer to the time of the arrest of Jesus), they would have been even more barren. Yet it seems to me that in the film, I saw more people milling around the streets of Jerusalem as they visited the courtyard of the priest than I saw in the middle of downtown Chicago or New York City's Times Square. Contrary to the film's alleged review by the Pope, "This is not as it was." Rather, it is as it has generally been presented in the context of passion dramas. These have typically been unfriendly toward Jews and unfaithful to the Gospel presentation. They falsely create throngs of Jews who by their actions show hatred for Jesus and ignored the multitude of supporters who placed great hope in Jesus.
There is no reason to assume a massive angry crowd formed in the middle of the night in that courtyard. This was not New York. It was not Chicago. It was not even South Bend, Indiana or Lubbock, Texas. You just can't find a crowd at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning in most small to mid-sized communities. Jerusalem may have been the largest city in Israel, but it was still a relatively small city in antiquity when compared to modern national capitals. One should also recognize that the Jews of the city had just celebrated one of their biggest festival meals. They prayed heartily, they ate heartily, they sang songs heartily, many drank a fair bit of wine, and the city went to sleep-just like the disciples. The general population was not milling around the streets in the middle of the night waiting for a parade.
A simple reading of the Gospel proves the errant interpretation of that specific scene in the film. Matthew indicated that the small group who had gathered outside consisted of Peter sitting in the courtyard "with the servants" (Matthew 26:58). How many servants did the High Priest have? How many hired hands were required to press his skivvies or polish his crown? However many it was, they were the only folks stoking the fire with Peter. Luke mentioned a non-descript "they" in his account saying "they had kindled a fire in the midst of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them, and a certain servant girl . . . said 'This man was also with Him' " (Luke 22:55). No crowd is detailed. No angry mob is implied. The jeering crowds and the angry mobs are nothing more than centuries of poor interpretations wrongly put forth by earlier anti-Semitic readings. These earlier extra-biblical, ungodly interpretations have been typical of the sentiments expressed by Christians that have plagued my people since the Dark Ages. This film did not invent the problem; it simply missed an opportunity to correct it.
I will not argue against the belief that Jewish leaders were at the helm of the conspiracy to destroy Jesus. They were. However, I do reject the belief that the average Jews of Jerusalem were in any way involved in that conspiracy. Yet this is what can be wrongly assumed when one views the film without considering the above-mentioned facts. The film presented a growing crowd of Jews who hated Jesus and wanted Him executed. They achieved their goal in the film. Coincidentally, by the time of that courtyard scene, the Jews were finally portrayed wearing fringed prayer shawls. There can be no mistake as to who the enemies were in the gospel according to the filmmaker. The rising anger was also amplified by the audio of that scene as it seemed to have more voices and noise added increasing the level of activity and commotion. The background sounds may have even exceeded the exaggerated numbers of people who were allegedly present. There simply would not have been such a large group of people roaming the streets outside so very, very late in the middle of the night. And the group continued to grow in numbers and intensity to the point that Roman soldiers were presented as being concerned about the dangerous tenor of the gathering.
By the time the scene shifted into the next trial that Jesus endured at Pilate's court, the typical passion play errors were even more recognizable. Looking out into the streets of Jerusalem from the vantage point of Pilate, all one could see through the gates of his court was what appeared to be an endless stream of angry Jews coming to the trial. The outdoor court of Pilate continued to fill up with as many Jews as could be crammed into the scene. The feeling one had as a viewer was that all the Jews of Jerusalem must have turned against Jesus. Of course, this is an untenable perspective and the growing angry mob scene was as ludicrous as most other passion dramas.
Pilate held court near 6:00 in the morning. Pilate would not have permitted a disorderly horde to bring chaos and commotion to his court. He certainly would not have tolerated a riot during his watch. More important, the Jewish leaders did not want unfriendly voices prohibiting their deceptive scheme. The film suggests the preponderance of voices were against Jesus. The actors behaved as wickedly against Christ as did the Sanhedrin and the High Priest. Yet in fact, the Jewish leaders were quite careful to handle the arrest and trial of Jesus under the cloak of darkness. They knew that the Jews of Jerusalem loved Jesus. They knew they could not afford to act out their wicked plans in the daylight when their wickedness might be identified and stopped by the massive number of supporters who loved Jesus. In all likelihood, the group in attendance was very small and intentionally limited to those involved in the conspiracy. Instead of a growing parade of Jews who followed the mob, it was more likely to have followed the course precisely described in the Gospel.
So as to avoid speculation, I will present the texts and provide a reasonable interpretation of the account from the Gospel of Luke. This will explain the enormous gap that exists between the biblical narrative and the scene presented in The Passion of the Christ. It will also clearly reveal why I believe the film fell into some of the same passion drama errors that have depreciated the truth about the event since this genre of theatre was developed in the anti-Semitic theological soup of the Middle Ages.
The text informs careful readers, "Then the whole multitude of them arose and led Him to Pilate" (Luke 23:1). We can be certain who led the Jews to Pilate. It was not the angry mob depicted in the film. It was not any vicious crowd of Jews who had been roaming the streets of Jerusalem. We can know precisely who inhabited the group wrongly portrayed by stage directors and film producers to create a dramatic effect at the cost of biblical truth. This scene is probably abused more than any other to the detriment of the Jewish people and Mr. Gibson's film followed the same bitter pattern. Fortunately, it is very simple to know the correct makeup of the group in question. In fact, it was the identical group that had dragged Jesus to their own mock trial at the break of dawn five verses earlier.
Luke made clear that immediately after the Jewish leaders railroaded Jesus through their own rigged hearing, the same Jewish leaders forced Him to the hearing in front of Pilate. It was this specific group that Luke identified as "the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes." Matthew limited the group to "the chief priests and elders of the people" (Matthew 27:1). Mark expanded the base somewhat to include the chief priests, "the elders and scribes and the whole council" (Mark 15:1). It is also meaningful to here present the idea that Mark's inclusion of the "whole council" may have included less than 100% of the 70 Sanhedrin members. If only a quorum was in attendance, their decision would have carried the weight of the whole council as if they were all present. It is just as if the Congress of the United States had met in session, voted, and passed laws. The authority of the whole congress would stand behind the laws enacted just as if every legislator were present. This would be true even if many of the members were absent for the vote on the floor, provided the minimum number for a legal quorum were in attendance.
There is very little doubt as to who should have been cast in the scene. Make no mistake about their identities. It was the same clandestine group that "came together and led Him into their council" (Luke 22:66). I am confident that this is true because later in the chapter, Pilate also addressed the group in specific terms saying that Pilate "called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people" (Luke 23:13). I believe it fair to suggest that "the people" included the scribes previously mentioned, and perhaps three other important small groups of specific individuals. There were some Jewish Temple guard soldiers involved in the initial arrest, possibly a handful of Roman soldiers to keep the mission "kosher," and the false witnesses hired by the leaders of the conspiracy. This was also the same group of people involved in the earlier trial. Since the gathering before Pilate was another legal proceeding, the Jewish leaders would have required the false witnesses to also attend in case they needed to present corroborating (albeit contrived) evidence against the defendant-Jesus. The soldiers would have possibly remained in the gathering to insure order, and more likely, to discourage any accidental uninvited participation from the supporters of Jesus.
Mr. Gibson made another major error in his departure from the Scriptures in the judgment hall scene. This is not surprising as the mistake is typical within the common patterns of passion dramas. The scene in Pilate's court is usually focused on the governor's desire to set Jesus free. He is usually unable to release Jesus because of a bloodthirsty Jewish mob. Likewise, Pilate tends to befriend Jesus. At first he is puzzled by the charismatic Jewish Messiah. Then, after a few moments in His presence, the Roman leader appears so taken by the hero of the drama that he would "get saved" if someone was to softly play Just As I Am and present an altar call. But alas, neither an organ nor a choir could be found. Mr. Gibson's portrayal was true to passion drama form. Pilate was so moved by his encounter with Jesus that it caused him to begin asking the deep questions of life. It sort of made you want to pray for poor old Pilate and quote John 14:6. But soon enough, Pilate moved to the hand-washing scene and the Jewish rabble-rousers screamed for the death of our hero. It had all of the needed qualities for a great drama, but ignored the cast of characters defined in the Bible.
All four of the New Testament writers agree as to the limits of the participants at Pilate's court. This scene was extremely disturbing. As is normal, it was extremely dramatic and horribly exaggerated to such astounding levels that one is convinced that the Jews must be hateful and inhumane. Of course it included Pilate's gracious offer to free Jesus. But as usual, Pilate, was forced to kill Jesus to satisfy the Jewish bloodlust and free Barabbas. It is true that the Scripture declares, "They all cried out at once, saying, 'Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas' " (Luke 23:18). But who actually spoke those words? Who constitutes "they?" Mr. Gibson's version was worse than some I have experienced because of the grotesque nature of his choice for Barabbas. Someone needed to disinfect this character before he spread his disease through the crowd via his sickening, arrogant, tongue-wagging mouth. I thought he bore a striking resemblance to Shrek. Then on further reflection, I assume he was next-of-kin to Gibson's Quasimoto from the High Priest's court.
Of course, when presenting a passion drama, one rarely misses an opportunity to bring Jesus in front of Herod. For some reason, Herod is usually a homosexual, drunken, blithering idiot only interested in seeing a quick miracle so he can return to his debauchery. This is unfair. Herod had many other disgusting characteristics that were overlooked. Perhaps those highlighted were more fun for the audience.
On a much more serious note, one fundamentally confused element of the film related to the fear displayed by Pilate regarding his concern over the danger of a riot breaking out. This is also typical of the perverted misunderstanding generally presented which erroneously suggests that the preponderance of Jews wanted Jesus to be executed. The fear generally presented in these dramas tend to imply that if the angry mob fails to have its way and Jesus was to escape execution, then as a result, trouble would erupt. The bloodthirsty mob was expected to riot or take justice into their own hands. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. It was true that some Jewish leaders feared a revolt. But it was exclusively the result of the popularity enjoyed by Jesus. He was beloved among the multitudes of Jewish people. There was a justifiable fear that violence might occur if things got out of hand and the many followers of Jesus had learned about the scheme of the conspirators. The violence that would have surely shaken the city would have been for exactly the opposite of the reason presented in the passion drama. The conspirators had Jesus arrested under the cloak of darkness to insure that the mass of followers would not see them and stop their wicked plan. This was the reason the soldiers carried lanterns and torches. It was the middle of the night. The city was asleep. Nobody outside of the conspirators was supposed to know it was happening for fear of reprisals from the Jewish supporters of Jesus.
One additional commonly twisted segment of the drama was also played out in front of Pilate. This was the call for the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jewish mob. In Gibson's film, as is usual, the crowd demanded the death of Jesus in an incessant clamor of hatred. Again and again and again and again they cried for His crucifixion. It seemed like the cheerleaders of hate screamed for this a dozen times. I do not believe they were all included in the English subtitles. Nonetheless, the crowd continued to demand the death of Jesus in a scene that seemed to be unending. This most inflammatory presentation was totally inappropriate, although customary in the genre. It was another clear departure from the Scriptures.
The call to crucify Jesus came from the identical clandestine group of Jewish conspirators and their cohorts previously identified. Luke details the correct wording of the script that should have been spoken by the group, "Crucify him, crucify him" (Luke 23:21). That's it. It's all he wrote! In the 27th chapter of Matthew, the same facts are recorded. He wrote, "Let him be crucified" (Matthew 27:22). This was also repeated exactly one more time in the following verse. Mark agrees without exception. Only John suggests any modification. His report inserts one additional cry for crucifixion following Pilate's private conference with Jesus. It is only an inherent anti-Semitic flair or the creative juices of careless drama directors who turn the scene into the hatefest typical of passion plays.
Of course as a Jew, my beef is with Mr. Gibson's portrayal of the Jews in his film. However, if I were a Roman, I would have been much more disturbed. Pilate, who was a ruthless, brutal Roman leader, would turn over in Hell if he had seen himself depicted as an indecisive type of "casper milktoast" character led around at the whim of his wife. Many of the Roman soldiers were also portrayed in a fashion that was completely unrealistic. They certainly had the capability of being vicious and violent. However, they were not disobedient to their leaders. The film indicated them to be a bunch of rowdy, uncontrollable, irreverent, murderous thugs. They seemed to ignore the clear command of Pilate merely to punish Jesus. They were absolutely under orders not to beat him to death. Pilate's order seemed to be ignored and mocked by the murderous, sadistic beating they gave Jesus. A normal man would have certainly been dead long before they changed tools of torture to flay the rest of his skin. Likewise, he would not have made it to basting the flip side, let alone, the added beating in the locker room when He received His crown of thorns. Once again, the disobedience of the Roman soldiers would have been humorous were the scene not so tragic. I find it very unlikely that well-trained, battle-hardened Roman soldiers would have ignored Pilate's specific orders. I find it terribly improbable that they would have intentionally disobeyed the governor's orders and then went ahead to get drunk on the job (as it appeared some of the Roman soldiers did). Especially since all of this was taking place while the Jewish crowds appeared to stand by and watch.
I must also add another disclaimer about the presentation of Satan in the film. I did not quite understand the ugly hairy baby (unless it was the Anti-Christ?) during the torture scene. It still seemed the devil appeared to know what was going on. Yet, she (he?) also seemed to enjoy the show. It would seem to me that if Satan really had the big picture, or understood God's plan of salvation (indicated by Satan's comments made about the inability of Jesus to die for the people), Satan would have implemented a far different plan. Instead of turning the Sanhedrin against Jesus and using Judas to betray the Lord, Satan would have given Judas a cell phone and made him call 911 before anything happened to the Son of Man. The last thing Satan would have tolerated would have been the death of Jesus if it were known that His death was sacrificial leading to the Resurrection and the salvation of the Church Triumphant.
I was greatly troubled by the typical mistaken connection made between the Jews who worshipped Jesus on Palm Sunday and those who cheered His torture on Good Friday. In Gibson's presentation, Jesus had a flashback to the prior Sunday when people were celebrating His arrival to Jerusalem. The image suggested that the same Jews had turned against Him less than a week later. This inference creates a concept that the Jews were hypocrites and easily swayed. They changed loyalty on a whim and betrayed their hero without any conscience. As I have shown, it would have been a completely different group of Jews who hated Jesus and wanted to participate in His demise. To create a visual link between the Jews singing Hosanna on Palm Sunday with those involved in His betrayal on Good Friday is a betrayal of truth.
Finally, the scene that should win the award for least likely to have reached the silver screen must go the flashback of the Last Supper. This was a classic. I can almost hear the director scolding the scriptwriter who must have said, "I forgot to read the book before we shot the scene." Permit me to simply point out that the scene was a celebration of Passover. Yet Jesus was shown preparing to "break bread" with His disciples. They served a platter of bread, in spite of the fact it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In Yiddish, we would say the producer had a goyishe kop. In other words, the passion play Passover seder was definitely directed by a Gentile. Ma'nishtanah ha'lailah ha'zeh meecall ha'layloat. 296 It seems to me that someone stole much more than the afikomen 297 at that seder. They stole all of the matzah along with the Jewishness of Jesus.Is Gibson a Catholic Who Broke the Rules?
It has been widely reported that Mel Gibson is a devout Catholic. No one doubts this and the film has a variety of Catholic elements not addressed in this work because they were beyond the purview of the topic. I did not take on the task of discussing the Protestant vs. Catholic issues one might raise from the perspective of the film's composition. Whether or not Mary was given proper emphasis or the Stations of the Cross appropriate seem to be questions for others to debate. However, I am convinced that Mr. Gibson did break the established rules for Passion Play presentations endorsed by the Catholic Church.
In case you were unaware that such rules exist, do not be surprised. In this highly litigious era, one can find rules for anything. These rules, however, are wise. They were carefully crafted by informed scholars and had they been followed, much of the furor over the film and the publication of this new book could have been avoided.
The United States Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations published a guideline for Passion Play presentations. He properly acknowledged that "carelessly written or produced Passion plays can become a source of anti-Semitic reactions." 298 I will herein only quote the five basic rules suggested to producers of passion play presentations designed and approved as a warning to avoid erroneous interpretations and negligent misrepresentations.
1. "To conceal the fact that Jesus is a Jew and that His friends as well as His enemies in the drama are Jews;
2. To create the impression that most Jews of Jesus' day willed His death, failing to show the secrecy surrounding much of Jesus' trial was motivated by the large following He had in Jerusalem;
3. To change the 'crowd' before the governor's palace into a screaming 'mob,' as representing all Jerusalem, and indeed all Israel;
4. To depict Pilate, whom historiography has shown to have been a ruthless tyrant, as an innocent and kindly bystander;
5. To highlight those texts of the gospel narrative that are amenable to misinterpretation by uninformed audiences." 299
The Bishop's Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs also provided a simple summary for scholars and educators to consider when producing materials related to the subject. One important point identified by them that was apparently ignored by Mr. Gibson was the requirement to avoid, "The misconception that the Judaism of Jesus' time was decadent, formal and hypocritical, and that Jesus' enemies were representative of it." 300
It seems to me that if the film had been more true to the guiding concerns simply and eloquently stated by the above-mentioned leaders, the film could have been far more effective and much less offensive to those who took offense. Further, it would not have depreciated the message, the method, or the mood of the film. The love of Jesus could have been presented equally well without the vilification of the Jewish people who were not involved in the event.
*Footnotes #286 - #300 can be found at end of chapter XVI page 195 of actual text.
THE PASSION CONSPIRACY:
Did the Jews Kill Christ . . .
or Was Jesus the Victim of Identity Theft?Book Price: $12.00 U.S.
Street Date: Available August 2004
ISBN Number: 1-57376-004-8
Paperback 214 pp.Ordering Information
Review Copies are avilable to the "Media" by calling 1-866-568-5433To order now click here or call 1-800-688-3422.
Contact us to order bulk quantities of this book.