Anti-Semitism in The Passion

Trevor Peterson 2004

1 New Testament
1.1 Matt 27:25
Problem: A lot has been said about the oath that was spoken in the film in Aramaic but for whatever reason was not subtitled. After Pilate washes his hands, the GNT indicates that all the people said, (Matt 27:25). This statement can easily be taken to mean (and has been so taken throughout much of Church history) that the Jews forever bear the guilt of Jesuss death, to the point that they are viewed as a cursed people. That it was removed from the subtitles is little consolation to those who are bothered by it. The amount of publicity surrounding its removal has ensured that most people are aware of its presence, even without knowing Aramaic. Response: I think that perhaps the first thing we need to clarify is that there is no curse here. It is an assignment of blame, but we should not take it further than necessary. Also, I think there is something to be learned by looking at Matt 23:2933. Here, instead of looking at the present generation and forward to their descendants, Jesus looks at the present generation and back to their ancestors. When he indicts the scribes and Pharisees for their connection to those who killed the prophets, he is not talking about some curse passed down by bloodline; if that were the case, it would be hard to avoid implicating all Jews of his generation, including himself and his own disciples. The connection is not one of blood but of shared attitude. The Pharisees claimed as their ancestors those who killed the prophets, and because of their hypocrisy established an ironic connection even as they tried to distance themselves from the earlier offence. This treatment follows the teaching of Rabbinic Judaism, that descendants cannot claim a 1

share in the blessing or cursing that applies to their ancestors, unless they share the same heart condition. So whatever is accomplished by this statement before Pilate, it cannot implicate all Jews ever after, regardless of their internal condition. The crucial categories, then, are not of ethnicity or bloodline, but of heart response to the gospel. And this is precisely the message of Christianitythat salvation depends not on lineage but on choice. Jews are not right with God by virtue of being Jewish, but neither are they condemned by virtue of being Jewish. The distinctive thing to see about the crowd that claimed his blood is that they had rejected his message, not that they belonged to a particular people group. The only Christians there were at the time were also Jewishthe difference is that they believed. In the same way, later generations stand or fall based on how they respond to the gospel, not who their ancestors were.

1.2 1 Thess 2:1416

Problem: Another passage that drew special attention from its use by a church sign at the opening of the film is 1 Thess 2:1416: , , , , , , , , , . . This passage not only blames the Jews for killing Jesus but also pronounces severe wrath on them for their persecution of Christians. Response: Here, again, I think we need to think carefully about what is actually being said and who is saying it. Paul himself is a Jew and knows it, even as he writes these words. When he writes about the believers in Judea who underwent persecution, he is also writing primarily about Jews. In this passage, he refers explicitly to Jews only once, and that in a very clear correlation with Gentiles. The statement is that these believers in Thessalonica have experienced persecution from their fellow Thessalonians, just as believers in Judea experienced persecution from their fellow Jews. (Indeed, it could arguably be translated that the believers in Judea 2

were persecuted by Judeans, putting the stress more squarely on geographical idenitity, and reinforcing the parallel.) So the Jews (or Judeans) that Paul has in mind are those opposed to the gospel who persecuted their fellow Judeans (who were Christians), not Jews in general as a race of people. It seems natural to me that what Paul says about their sin and judgment is expressed here particularly to remind the Thessalonians that God will also deal with those who are persectuing them, and that it is their job simply to endure. In other words, the strong remarks in v. 16 apply just as much to the Gentile persecutors of Thessalonica as to the Jewish persecutors of Judea. It is not an ethnic issue.

1.3 Truth of the New Testament

Problem: Some Jews argue that the Gospel accounts are fabricated stories from beginning to end. Others take a more nuanced approach, arguing that they were written at a time when the risk was too great to impugn Roman authorities with the death of Jesus. Pilate was therefore made to look reluctant, and the Jews to look like the real perpetrators. They argue that a historically sensitive portrayal should account for these circumstances and what we know otherwise of Pilate himself, to come up with a more accurate presentation. Response: I do not think it is for this discussion to argue whether the NT is historically accurate or not. I realize Gibson has tried to argue that whatever anti-Semitism people might perceive in his film is simply a factor of presenting historical reality, but it seems to me that there is an impossible contradiction here. Either he should be permitted artistic license to add things that cannot be inferred from documentary or archaeological evidence for the sake of making a good film, or he should claim to present only facts. He cannot have it both ways, and personally I think the latter claim would be impossible to substantiate for this kind of project. A somewhat better argument is to say that he accepts what the Gospels say as accurate and has tried to base his portrayal on this assumption. This does not have to mean that he can present only what is explicitly indicated in the Gospels, but it does allow for him to retain the basic notion that there was Jewish pressure exerted on Pilate to crucify Jesus. There is nothing specifically anti-Semitic about preserving this notion in a film rendition. Nor, for that matter, would it necessarily have been anti-Semitic of the Gospel writers to distort the picture in this way (assuming for the sake of argument that 3

they in fact did). If they truly were motivated by fear of Roman retaliation and felt that it was the only way to detract from the culpability of Roman authorities, we could say they were cowards but not necessarily anti-Semitic. Granted, it could still be argued that their portrayal would fuel anti-Semitism, but still there would be no intentional anti-Semitism on the part of either the NT writers or Gibson himself. This response is less than it might be, because I have chosen not to address head-on the question of whether the NT writers distorted the way things really happened to cast Pilate in a better light and the Jewish leaders in a worse. I think it diminishes the probability of intentional anti-Semitism in the process that led to what we see in the film, but it leaves open the possibility of unintentional anti-Semitism, which can be a serious problem in itself. I think we should be honest about this possibility and stress the importance of scrutinizing the NT portrayal. If we conclude that the role assigned to the Jewish leaders is basically accurate, at least we can say why we believe that. If we conclude that is is not, we have a responsibility to articulate a more correct account. But if we ignore the issue altogether, that is a problem.

2 History
Problem: The thematic connection with European passion plays is unavoidable. Focusing on the death of Jesus led to animosity toward the Jews as his killers. Hitler even commended the passion play as a means of stirring up proper feelings toward the Jews. The degree of violence portrayed in the film surpasses anything previously possible and therefore carries an even greater potential for fostering anti-Semitic resentment. Response: I think this is a legitimate concern. Not that the passion plays were necessarily started for an anti-Semitic purpose, but one way or another, they did help to foster anti-Semitism. Whether it was anyones intention to send an anti-Semitic message with this film, the same thing could very well happen. Even if we did not acknowledge that the film could evoke hatred toward Jews for the events it portrays, we would have to admit that a person who sits down to watch it already hating Jews will probably leave hating them even more. Objecting that we are different today from the Europe of 75 years ago is a cop-out. Anti-Semitism is not a dead issue, and the moment we begin thinking that it is, we will find ourselves in the greatest danger of embracing it. More on this below. 4

3 Mel Gibson
3.1 His Sect
Problem: Gibsons sect rejects the reforms of Vatican II, which included a condemnation of earlier anti-Semitic thinking: 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abrahams stock. Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to Gods saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in ChristAbrahams sons according to faith (cf. Gal. 3:7)are included in the same Patriarchs call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen peoples exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 11:1724). Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself (cf. Eph. 2:1416). The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh (Rom. 9:45), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Churchs main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christs Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation (cf. Lk. 19:44), nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading (cf. Rom. 11:28). Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle (cf. Rom. 11:2829; cf. dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium 5

(Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20). In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and serve him shoulder to shoulder (Soph. 3:9; cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:1132). Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues. True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. John 19:6); still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospels spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antiSemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Churchs preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of Gods all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows. Response: This is a legitimate concern. Gibsons rejection of Vatican II does not necessarily make him anti-Semitic, any more than a person who objects to gun control is necessarily a violent criminal. (We might also point out that Evangelicals do not accept Vatican II either, which does not necessarily make us anti-Semitic.) Still, in light of the history between the Catholic Church and Jews, it is understandable that they would be con6

cerned about a Catholic who explicitly denies the most ground-breaking statement that institution has ever made on this issue.

3.2 His Father

Problem: Gibsons father is a known anti-Semite who has denied the Holocaust. Response: Although Mel Gibsons views may not be those of his father, it is problematic that he has not repudiated any of his fathers statements. To be sure, blood is thicker than water; if he does not want to criticize his fathers views in public, that is his business. But to the extent that this loyalty prevents him from explicating his own views, it is reasonable for people to be suspicious of them.

3.3 His Inspiration

Problem: Gibsons making of the film was influenced by the visions of Anne-Catherine Emmerich, also known for her anti-Semitism. Many of the details not found in the Gospels were drawn from her. Response: It has been argued that Emmerichs anti-Semitism was not so very different from that of her contemporaries. This may be a healthy corrective to how we think about her as an individual, but it does not change the fact that her writings about Jews would not be allowed under Vatican II. It also does not give a modern filmmaker license to draw on her work indiscriminately and ignore the implications.

4 The Film
4.1 Pontius Pilate
Problem: In addition to his too-positive portrayal from the NT, Pilates reluctance to crucify Jesus is accentuated in the film. He is portrayed as afraid of the Jews and becomes a pawn in their plot. Response: Pilates portrayal is indeed rather sympathetic, more so than in the NT. The conversation with his wife, in which he worries that he will be punished for allowing another uprising, is unfounded in the NT and 7

probably runs counter to what we learn about Pilate from other sources. Granted, there would have been no way to portray him in the film as openly hostile toward Jesus, but if he had been merely disinterested with the whole affair, colder, less sympathetic, the contrast with the Jewish leaders would not have been as strong.

4.2 Caiaphas the High Priest

Problem: Caiaphas, on the other hand, is clearly in charge of the proceedings. No hint is given that he is the least bit reluctant or concerned about the consequences. His precise issues with Jesus are not even clear. Response: The Gospels indeed provide us with more insight into Caiaphass motivation. (Even Jesus Christ Superstar recalls for us Caiaphass rationalization, that it would be better to get rid of this one man than to let the whole nation fall.) There is plenty of room to suggest internal conflicts on his part, as we find in so many portrayals of Pilate. Instead, he is presented as rather calloused to the whole proceeding.

4.3 The Chief Priests

Problem: Like Caiaphas, the chief priests in general are visibly present and hardened at Jesuss flogging and crucifixion. They are visually associated with Satan in their reaction at the end of the film. This last view is in contrast with the worshipful, repentant attitude exhibited by the Roman soldiers. Response: There is no clear reason to put the priests at these events, particularly since purity regulations would probably have prevented them from attending. It strengthens the impression that his enemies truly hate him, and it does provide an opportunity to show that even they must flinch at watching his beating; but clearly their disgust does not overcome their resolve, and they appear just as stone-faced as ever when he is finally hung on the cross. Their reaction at the destruction of the temple upon his death is also unnecessary. Perhaps they did in fact react this way to see the temple veil torn, but the juxtaposition does align them more closely than necessary with Satan.

4.4 Demonic Presence

Problem: The demonic associations with the Jews go still further, as Satan is seen to walk in the midst of the Jewish priests and crowds. The demons who drive Judas to his death also appear as Jewish children. Response: Although the Gospels do not specifically address the presence of Satan in these various situations, they do indicate that he played a role in the events. He controlled Judas when he chose to betray Jesus (but not necessarily when he killed himself), and it is reasonable to think that if Satan tried to dissuade Jesus from his mission earlier in the wilderness, he was probably also present in the garden. Putting him in with the Jews can be taken different ways. One might perceive it to mean that the people who were lashing out at Jesus were not doing so because they were intrinsically evil themselves but because they were manipulated by Satan. Another might instead stress the notion of Satanic control and see an evil association with the people themselves. The problem is that the response depends largely on preconceptions.

4.5 Violence
Problem: Excessive violence is portrayed on the part of the Jews. Jesuss fall from the bridge after his arrest is nowhere in the Gospel accounts. Similarly, there is no precedent for the Jews abusing Jesus along the road to his death. Response: The danger here is that people will lose sight of important distinctions and see the Jews as more or less monolithic in their hatred. Granted, it could be argued that these violent reactions were sparked by the deeper hatred for Jesus on the part of the leadership; but the film does not make that clear. Instead, we see a lot of bystanders who react violently for no apparent reason. Perhaps it is simply the nature of crowds to respond this way when they see a condemned criminal going by, but it is not much more difficult to assume that it is simply the nature of Jews to react this way. What the film does not show is whether the majority of Jews had no interest whatsoever in the proceedings. Instead, our attention is drawn to those who reacted negatively (and a small, weak remnant who were clearly on his side), which makes for a well-established conflict but in the process tends to polarize our impression of the events. 9

4.6 Lack of Background

Problem: All of this hatred comes across as irrational, because no substantive background is provided. Aside from the vague charges at the Jewish hearing (which presupposes a prior history of animosity), nothing is shown about Jesus that would provoke anyone to want him dead. Pilates reluctance and confusion is a voice for the audience, who are also baffled by the senselessness. The resulting impression is that the Jews actions are completely unjustified. There is no room for the audience to sympathize with their concerns. They are simply evil. Response: Call it good film-making if you must, but the problem is real. It is all well and good for Christians to contemplate the death of Jesus as an isolated event, but we always do so with the full context in mind. Even so, we should be wary of the danger that waits even for us. If we spend too much time on this one event, it is easy to come away hating the perpetrators. And this seems to have been part of the problem with the European passion plays as well. The death of Jesus makes sense for us on various levels, all of them set against the background of redemption. If we lose sight of that background, it is just a violent act perpetrated his enemies. But why are they his enemies in the first place? The film provides very little answer to this question. In a sense, it is unimportant, because we can see the world as polarized into those who are for Jesus and those who are against him. Also, Christians have the advantage of knowing what it was about him that got his enemies so worked up. But should a film depend so heavily on this background understanding? As we lose ourselves in the moment, it is easy to forget the complexities and layers, to see only some very angry people acting out their anger in very violent ways. And as soon as the violence and anger seem senseless, we have little to prevent us from concluding that these are basically evil people. When rational Christians watch it and contemplate it, we might come away thinking that these basically evil people who put him to death are what we would be without our faith. But that does not preclude the possibility that others will come away angry at the Jews for what they did to Jesus.

4.7 Physical Depiction of Jews

Problem: The physical depiction of the Jewish leaders strengthens this sinister impression. They are fat, while the Romans are trim. Their faces are dark; their noses are hooked, like the medieval stereotype. Their East10

ern European earlocks and prayer shawls ensure a direct connection with todays Orthodox Jews. Jesuss own appearance is more aligned with that of the Romanstoo tall for a first-century Jew, straight nose, trim physique which compounds with his use of Latin (for those who can observe the distinction) to set him apart from his accusers. Response: I dont know that there was any negative intention in making the Jewish leaders look specifically Jewish. The particular features stressed could have been historically inaccurate as a result of genuinely mistaken good intentions. Arguably, something like the difference in physique could have been a real distinction and given completely different impressions in its own context than it would give to a modern audience. Many cultures at various times have considered fatness a mark of importance; biblical terminology even favors this kind of association. Nevertheless, it is something to think about when making a film that a modern audience will react according to its own norms. As for Jesuss appearance, this is a consistent problem in visual portrayals. There is a good deal more sensitivity to this issue now than there has been in the past, but in the same way that Gibson apparently retained the traditional design of the cross that Jesus carried because it is traditional, he may have been reluctant to depart too much from what Christians traditionally envision when they think of Jesus. At some point, though, this traditional consideration must be weighed against the effect of suggesting that Jesus is himself more European and less Semitic. The language issue is, of course, completely imagined and could probably have been minimized significantly if Gibson had included Greek.

4.8 Missing Jewish Elements

Problem: Even though the Jewish leaders are associated visually with modern Jews, some characteristically Jewish elements are omitted from the proceedings. In particular, an explicit charge and a proper trial would have been required by Rabbinic law. By omitting such matters of propriety, only those elements of Jewishness that help to strengthen the negative impression remain. Also, no hint is given of the factions that existed within Judaism, which would have served to emphasize that Christianity was very much one such Jewish faction, and could also have helped to show that the Jewish response to Jesus was far from monolithic.

11

Response: Not that it would have been essential to pay this much attention to context and accuracy in making a film, but clearly quite a bit of care was taken. It is not an easy thing to come up with the whole dialog for a film in Aramaic and Latin; you have to make a special effort. Clearly, something was known about Roman methods of beating. When details like this are treated carefully, it looks that much worse to have overlooked details that could make a real difference in the impression people get about the portrayal of Jews in the film. Granted, it could be argued that the NT suggests a shady trial; but it also doesnt give much indication that anyone but the priests condoned it. Since there is no visible presence of the Pharisees in the film (and since the Pharisees are generally believed to be the more direct ancestors of modern Judaism), the impression one gets is that all Jews were lumped together.

4.9 Exclusive Nature

Problem: Ultimately, the lack of proper background and consequent portrayal of the Jews creates a divisive experience. Only those who come already understanding the story and its significance for Christianity, particularly those who accept it as valid, will get the main point. For those who come without this preunderstanding, the best possible outcome is bewilderment at the degree of violence portrayed. For Jews, the outcome can be much worse and the expectation understandable that Christians who see the film will hate its antagonists. Response: It is true, unavoidable, and probably desirable that the gospel creates a defining boundary between people. Some accept it, some do not. As we see in the Gospels, particularly with Jesuss parables, many of his teachings could only be properly understood by those on the inside, and those on the outside were only confirmed in their opposition to the truth when they failed to understand. Perhaps it was part of Gibsons intention to create a film that would have a similar effect. The problem, however, is that the context has changed. Whereas the early Christians were basically Jewish themselves and recognized that this division was a matter of faith and lack thereof, Christians today mostly identify themselves as Gentile. To sit and watch for two hours the animosity and hatred of clearly Jewish people worked out in violence toward their savior certainly has the potential to polarize audience hatred against Jews in general. This is particularly so, when the only distinction between these enemy Jews and any 12

others that appear in the film is where clearly the latter have converted to Christianity, which tends to make them appear more Gentile. Add to that a rather Gentile looking Jesus who is comfortable speaking in Latin, and a Roman response that is at worst flippant and at best worshipful, and it does not seem like such a stretch for Jews to worry that this film will have effects similar to those of the old passion plays. I am not trying to say that the film is without redeeming qualities. Far from it, I think it can serve as a powerful instrument for contemplation on the death of Jesus. At the same time, I can understand and sympathize with the serious concerns of many Jews, that as far as theyre concerned, no good will come of it. For better or worse, we live in a post-Holocaust world, under the shadow of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In such a setting, it is rarely possible to ignore the issue; to pretend that it never happened or that its significance is a thing of the past is just as bad as, if not worse than, being overtly anti-Semitic ourselves. Whatever else this film may be, it is a repackaging of the passion narratives for modern consumption. Whenever we engage in such reformulation, we are obligated to do so responsibly, to understand the implications of everything we include and everything we omit. Such an approach is not to diminish the gospel; on the contrary, we clarify the message of Christ by stripping away the prejudices of the past. What Paul wrote 2000 years ago is still true today. The gospel is not about raceit never has been, and it never should be. Whatever gives the impression that it is can only diminish from the truththat it is faith in response to Gods grace, and nothing else.

13