Cahill 1 Alina Cahill Dr. Williams FSTY 1313.14 10/9/12 Passionate Sacrifice or Anti-Semitism?

Controversial films spark interest and passion in Americans. Often, citizens find themselves caught up in a passionate crossfire due to their religious or moral beliefs being slighted. An example can be found in Mel Gibsons Passion of the Christ. Many people, especially of Jewish heritage or beliefs, found the film anti-Semitic, placing full responsibility of the crucifixion of Christ upon the shoulders of the Jews. Retrospectively, people, notably Christians, contended that Passion of the Christ is an accurate adaptation of the Biblical account of Jesuss last twelve hours, depicting his ultimate sacrifice for humanity. The accusation of anti-Semitism against Passion of the Christ has not been made casually; the Jewish community has been very vocal about their disproval and shock at what it sees as the obvious prejudice depicted in the film. The bigotry was apparent not only in the making of the film but also in the release, where Christian pastors and other religious leaders were invited to a preview of the controversial film, yet two of the Jewish communitys most prominent leaders had to sneak in after they found themselves without an invitation. Similarly, the viewers present were asked to sign an agreement stating they would withhold their opinion from the media, yet this same document later states that pastors and church leaders are free to speak out in support of the movie and your opinions resulting from todays exposure to this project and its producer (Kennedy). Jewish Rabbis feared that encouragement of praise rather

Cahill 2 than unbiased opinion would lead to a partisan depiction of the film in the media, potentially leading to a reawakening of centuries of discrimination against the Jewish nation. Though they argue that anti-Semitism can be found throughout the film, many members of the Jewish community were enraged at the inclusion of the line His blood be on us, and on our children (Matthew 27:25), a controversial verse of scripture. In the Second Vatican Council document, Pope John Paul VI made a public statement declaring that the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, but that the crucifixion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today (Allen). This repudiated that the Jewish people as a whole are guilty of deicide. However, it still puts blame upon Caiaphas and other peoples who were involved with the condemnation of Christ. Controversially, one scene of the film depicted Pontius Pilate washing his hands, which symbolized him cleansing himself of the cruelty to come to the innocent man, and the people responded by quoting Matthew 27:25. This put direct blame for Jesuss scourging and crucifixion on the shoulders of the Jews. After receiving many complaints that this verse was incendiary, the root of anti-Semitism, Gibson put out a statement saying that he would cut the scene from his movie. However, this scene was included in the final version of the film (Kennedy). Little information can be found regarding why Gibson chose this scene to remain; focus seems to be much more on the idea that the scene exists rather than why it does. Also inciting anger was the gross over exaggeration of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas, who present[ed] a caricature of relentless malevolence (Boys). In Passion of the Christ, Caiaphas is singled out and presented as the leader of the Jewish community when in the Bible he merely presided over the night tribunal. According to Gibsons film, Caiaphas made [the

Cahill 3 night court] a kangaroo proceeding by inviting only a few council members while the rest (presumably more sympathetic to Jesus) [were] still home in bed (Kraemer). Yet the Bible states that they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elder and the scribes (Mark 14:53). The book of Matthew says when the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death (Matthew 27:1). Each verse clearly states that the entire counsel was present at Jesuss arrest, countering Gibsons version. Also distinctive from the Bible was Caiaphass initial accusation of Jesus: that he violated the Sabbath. This accusation is not found in any of the gospels, and existed in the film to further contrast Jesus from the Jewish belief system. Later Caiaphas appeared at the scourging of Jesus, which in the Bible is a Roman tradition and a Roman responsibility. Gibsons placement of Caiaphas in the scene seemed to be a reminder to the audience that despite that the scourging was inflicted by Roman hands, Jesus had been handed over by the Jewish, which embodied the idea of Matthew 27:25. Arguably the most controversial portrayal of Caiaphas could have been found in the distinct accountability given to the high priest when he declared that Jesus was not aptly punished by the whippings, and that he must be crucified. Two main controversies lie in this. Firstly, the Bible states and they cried out again, crucify him (Mark 15: 13), yet Gibson again singled out Caiaphas as the lone speaker. Secondly, this depiction of power in Caiaphas reversed the role of Pilate and the high priest. Pilate was portrayed as a victim caught between righteousness and preventing another riot, which was alluded to in the film, and Caiaphas was given power (Boys). This reversal only strengthened the idea of Jewish fault by directing the Roman part towards the Jews as well. Kennedy argues that there are moments of clear anti-Semitism throughout the film. The Jewish community and he contend that the Jews were depicted as villainous, with dark beards

Cahill 4 and eyes, like Rasputin (Kennedy). There is no compassion or remorse, only cruelty. Later in the film, the Temple of the Jews is swallowed in an enormous crevice caused by an earthquake, an act seen as an attack on their faith by many Jewish leaders. Despite constant criticisms, many Christians stand by the film, proclaiming it no more than a visual representation of Gospel truth (Boys). Inspired by the brutal portrayal of Jesuss ultimate sacrifice, Christian support for the film has risen around the world. They contend that the film was not only just the Gospel, but also a reminder to Christians of the magnitude of their Saviors sacrifice and compassion (Clinghoffer). The brutality of the film was extremely controversial, but Christian supporters argued that this was merely a depiction of Jesuss martyrdom and love for humanity. Jesus was Jewish, and merely preached that the prophesized Messiah had arrived. The betrayal and violence only highlighted Jesus compassion, as he uttered upon the cross Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luke 24:34). His forgiveness, despite the cruelty he was handled with, reminded Christians how compassionate their Savior was, and resurrected religious passion long dead in their hearts. The blood curse of Matthew 27:25 uttered by Caiaphas could be considered annulled by Luke 24:34. If Jesus had died only for the sins of Christians, then his death would have been moot, because Christianity was not practiced yet. He died upon the cross to save those who accepted him as their Savior, even if it was after they mocked, persecuted, and executed him. Jesus compassion was not a conditional love; His compassion was for humanity. So how can one argue that the film is anti-Semitic when its purpose was to depict the main characters unconditional love for all? An interesting argument between Christians and Jews regard the whipping of Christ. During this time period, it was common law that punishment was up to 40 lashings, as stated in

Cahill 5 Deuteronomy 25:3, yet Jesus scourging was depicted as much more brutal, and his body bore more than 40 lashes. This was considered brutality at the hands of Jews, since the film implied that the scourging was on their hands. However, this law was derived from the Old Testament, or the Jewish Torah. Despite Gibsons portrayal of Jewish guilt, these lashings were inflicted by Romans, who were pagans, not Jewish. Therefore, this Jewish law had no influence upon them: the Romans scourged Jesus as they saw fit. The Jewish community found the Jewish depiction in the film to be anti-Semitic, but there were multiple examples in the movie portraying Jewish sentiment. Most obvious was devout Jew Mary, who wept openly for her son. More subtle examples laid in the character change within the man singled out to help Jesus carry his cross and his challenge to the Roman brutality, as well as the revulsion that flickered across Caiaphas face during the scourging of Jesus (Boys). A common argument against the charge of anti-Semitism is the topic described in the film itself: the crucifixion of Christ. The anti-Semitism that is supposedly rallied through Passion of the Christ can be directed towards the idea that the Jews murdered the Christian savior. However, Christians say that the film only depicts what was prophesized in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53), and highlights the compassion and forgiveness that we should aspire to (Fairchild). The emotional appeal of the film was a high factor in Christian support. The conception itself relied upon the emotional connection of the Christian audience to the film, as the more moved they felt, the better the film fared. This deep portrayal of Christ would have been well received by people such as Pauline Kael, a film critic who clearly voiced her disapproval to emotionless media in Reeling (Kael).

Cahill 6 The different takes on Passion of the Christ are a result of personal bias. Each side sees what they want to see; neither side looks at the film completely objectively. Commonly, a specific scene will be used for evidence in one partys argument, but the same scene will then be used by the opposing side to support their claim. Naturally it isnt possible for a scene to wholly depict anti-Semitism and support the idea of unbiased Christian happenings at the same time. Therefore, each party is reading into the film to see their motives. A clue to this lays within the accusations each side were casting before the film was ever previewed, signifying that the opinions had already been formed regardless of the actual material present in the film. For those challenging the impartiality of Passion of the Christ, much evidence for antiSemitism can be found in the portrayal of certain characters, such as high priest Caiaphas. Caiaphas shrewdly convenes an unbiblical midnight monkey court and is portrayed as a closeminded Jew with one motif: the crucifixion of Jesus. The bible portrays Caiaphas to be motivated by a sense of preservation for himself and his people against the destructive Roman Empire. John 11 47-50 states Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. What are we accomplishing? they asked. Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. This portrays Caiaphas fear of revolt and therefore expulsion at Roman hands rather than a deep hatred for Christ. One can conclude from these verses that the persecution of Jesus was not because of the man, rather because of his following. This is because Romans were already

Cahill 7 oppressing the Jewish tribes after their invasion. The Jewish officials feared that an uprising, regardless if righteous, would anger the Romans and worsen their situation. It is reasonable to presume that the Pharisees would have reacted the same to another man who would have had a large following, not just Jesus. Yet Gibson portrays Caiaphas as a Jesus-hating Jew with power over the Roman government. Jewish officials feared portrayals such as this could fuel more antiSemitism, an issue the Jewish community has battled to overcome continuously throughout history. Christians defending Passion of the Christ have arguments based in Scripture as well. One such example is depicted in the controversial scene of the scourging of Christ. The Jewish community argued that the Bible clearly states that the law for whippings allows for 40-1 lashes. This is undisputed Jewish law. In the film, Jesus is whipped until his raw flesh is left macabrely mutilated, damage clearly done by more than 39 lashes. This gruesome portrayal of the scourging of Christ helps contend Gibsons overt focus on violence. However, the Christian refute argues that though this law is true, it isnt applicable in this situation. This is because Pontius Pilates soldiers, who are Roman not Jewish, deal the lashings. Roman law did not limit punishments, and Romans were to be bothered by the laws of the Jewish territories they occupied. The Roman Empire was a much stronger force than the Jewish nation at the time. I believe that Passion of the Christ has some anti-Semitism within it, but not to the extent the Jewish backlash contrives. Scenes such as the devilish depiction of the Jewish boys and the evil Caiaphas were not taken from scripture and can be viewed as an anti-Semitic depiction of Jewish citizens. However, I dont believe that Gibson intended this portrayal to be malicious; rather, he wanted to support his underlying focus: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Gibson wanted to describe an aspect of Jesus that is often mentioned but rarely delved upon, his love and

Cahill 8 sacrifice, and he wanted to do this in a way that shed light upon the power of the love of the Christ. By depicting gory violence and unabashed malice, Gibson illuminates the compassion Christ showed by forgiving them, and still dying for their sins. His purpose was not to attack or blame the Jews, but rather remind the world of the sacrifice Jesus made, and reinstall a love for Christ that has, in some hearts, been long absent. Each standpoint has arguments based not only in scripture but also belief, and because of these personal ties the two opposing stances will never come to an agreement.

Cahill 9 Works Cited

Allen, Dan. Vatican Frees Jews of Jesus Murder But Fears Removal of Blame in NT. Just Rebel Inc. MSNT.org, 30 Nov. 2003. Web. 22 Oct. 2012 http://tobejust.com/contents/free-jewsresponsibility-murder-jesus-remove-libel-nt.html Boys, Mary C. ""I Didn't See Any Anti-Semitism": Why Many Christians Don't Have a Problem with "The Passion of the Christ"" Cross Currents 54.1 (2004): 8-15. Print. Clinghoffer, David. "'Passion' Follows the Scripture." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 01 Jan. 2004. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/01/opinion/oeklinghoffer1>. Fairchild, Mary. "Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled." About.com Christianity. About.com, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm>. Kael, Pauline. Reeling Boston: Brown, Little Publishing, 1976: 408-412. Print Kennedy, Randy. "'Passion' Film Is Incendiary, 2 Jewish Leaders Report: Upset After Viewing Recent Versions." New York Times 23 Jan. 2004, Final ed., National Report sec.: A12. Print. King James Bible New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1972 Kraemer, Bob. "Is The Passion of the Christ Anti-Semitic." Power to Change. Power to Change Ministries, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. <http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/antisemtic/>. Mitchell, Margaret M. "Is the Passion of the Christ Anti-Semitic? Can Any Account of the Death of Jesus Which Is Based on the Gospels Not Be?" Stimulus 2nd ser. 12 (2004): 23-24. Print.