Is there reason to be worried about anti-Semitic attitudes bubbling up as a result of The Passion? Maybe ‘worry’ is too strong a word, but there is a distinct possibility that the phenomenon created through Gibson’s film will enable some degree of anti-Semitism, in both acts and speech.
The film is also likely to do much good for a great many, Christians and non-Christians. But we shouldn’t be too comfortable with the good it does if, as has happened, those who criticize the film are going to be accused of attacking Christianity. When zealous people are put on the defensive, and they perceive they are defending their faith, ugly things can happen. Dr. Paula Fredriksen has already seen some of the ugliness.
Early on in his project Mel Gibson touted the fact that he was going to make the most realistic, true to scripture, and historically accurate version of the last few hours of Christ’s life. From Dr. Fredriksen:
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" came into my life last April. Gene Fisher, the ecumenical officer for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, convened a group of scholars to assess Mr. Gibson's script - its historical fidelity, use of New Testament materials, and consonance with Catholic instruction.
Why did we on the panel care? This was, after all, just a movie. The answer, in part, lay with Gibson's own publicity efforts. In numerous interviews, he'd presented his movie as an act of God, insisted that it was the most historically accurate depiction of Christ's passion ever filmed, and paraded his own Catholic piety as authentication of his movie.
The panel presented Gibson a confidential critical report on the historical accuracy of the film. Gibson’s Icon Productions countered by leaking the report and accusing the panel of attacking Christianity. Was that exercise just part of the Hollywood hype to create a buzz for the film? Why attack other Christians simply for pointing out historical errors? Is that, alone, enough to raise fears of anti-Semitism? Yes it is.
Last night I listened as Paula Fredriksen related the story of two e-mails received by a friend of hers over his criticism of the film… The first e-mail presumably from a good Christian, “I’m praying for you, but I still hope you go to hell.” … and the second, “You must be a Jew,” She used the e-mails to introduce her topic, “Augustine and the Jews” and to illustrate how the seeds of anti-Semitic thought in this case are similar to the seeds of historical anti-Semitism that reached its height during the Middle Ages.
Theological debates among Christians, Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, over differing idea of how to read and interpret Jewish scriptures, and the Gospels were commonplace in the 1st through 4th centuries of the Common Era. The struggle for dominance between Christian sects eventually brought many to vilify Jews. As the intellectuals agrued about interpreting the texts, their discussions were misinterpreted. Some read the Gospels as an indictment of Judaism and thus began a long tradition of teaching contempt of Judaism. One debate in particular strikes a relevant chord.
Augustine, as a theologian argued against some established intellectuals of the time, such as Justin, who believed the Bible was largely allegorical. For instance, Justin taught that keeping Shabbat was not meant as a literal commandment but an allegory of moral excellence and that not eating Rabbit was an allegory against homosexuality (at the time rabbits were thought to be able to change sexes). In breaking with the allegorical tradition, Augustine took a more historical approach to reading the texts and argued that the Jews were right to obey the commandments, that circumcision was right for Jews. The Jews were right to live Jewishly, that Jesus was a Torah observant Jew and so were the disciples, even after the resurrection. With this Jew friendly theology, how do you think Augustine the Christian was received by other Christians? Jerome, another intellectual contemporary of his, confronted Augustine with the argument, “You must be a Jew.”
The point of the illustration was to show how internal debate among Christians, how Christians persecuting and killing other Christians, and how mistakes in interpretation were the seeds of anti-Semitic behavior. Dr. Fredriksen’s story is also a warning of the dangers we face today when criticism of a film is misunderstood as criticism of Christianity. She did an historical critique of the film and was attacked by those defending Christianity.
As an historical movie buff, who paid to see Braveheart four times, and as a scholar of ancient Christianity, Dr. Fredriksen was excited about the concept of “The Passion.” As good as Braveheart was, she thought this was sure to be a great film. She wasn’t thinking about “Lethal Weapon” and “Mad Max,” but maybe she should have been. She said, "Make no mistake this is an action film." In fact she suggested the script is Braveheart remade... with
Longshanks becoming Caiphas, William Wallace as Jesus, and Robert Bruce as Pilate, (complete with the sentiment, “Ah, go ahead and kill him if you want, but I’ll feel terrible about it.” Still, action films can be historically accurate, unfortunately this one is not, at least from what as Dr. Fredriksen understands of it.
I asked her:
You have been quoted as saying you were "shocked" by your reading of an early version of Mel Gibson's new screenplay. Would you please comment on the controversy since your first reading last summer and update us on your thoughts particularly in regards to the writings of Catherine Emmerich being the basis of Gibson's story.
Her answer didn’t ease my fears of the bad the work can bring, but it did raise my hopes for the good it can bring.
On being shocked she explained that in her initial reading of the script she was struck, first, with the fact that Gibson had Jewish soldiers arresting Jesus. The scene she described had Jewish soldiers attacking Jesus, putting him in chains while beating him and roughing him up, then they flung Jesus off a bridge to hang suspended for a while. Then they prodded him to the Temple.
It was not true to scripture to have Jews arrest Christ, nor was it accurate to go to the Temple at night, it was inaccessible, closed. Other details were not part of any of the Gospels. Nowhere in the 4 Gospels describing the Passion were there Jewish soldiers. It appeared, to Dr. Fredriksen and to other scholars, that Gibson had not been true to scripture and what he did pull out of the Gospels was the most poisonous, volatile stuff. Great for an action film, not so historically accurate.
She compared his combination of the Gospels into the Gibson story to a children’s book where the pages are divided so that you can show the head of a horse with the body of a pig and the legs of a cow. In telling an emotional and action packed drama he did not make the historically accurate version of events that he is touting.
She suffered two shocks as the panel discussed the screenplay they’d been presented with. First she was shocked that it was such a poor reading of the Gospels, and second that the story was coming to much from Emmerich. She had not been aware of Emmerich's work before some fo the Catholic members of the panel recognized it and brought the similarities up.
The ad hoc panel, which was primarily Christian, recommended a number of changes that would make it more historically accurate. One suggestion was that Gibson change the scene taken from Matthew’s version where the crowd yells, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Explained by scholars, those words are not as inflammatory as they appear in an action film.
First of all, she explained, the Gospel of Matthew was written a generation after Mark. In Mark we are told that the destruction of the Temple would herald the second coming of Christ. A generation later, Matthew has seen the destruction of the Temple, which as a Jew likely traumatized him, and he is disappointed, even traumatized, that Jesus hadn’t come back. He amends Mark’s Gospel, and links the destruction of the Temple with the destruction of two generations of Jews, since he fully expected the return of Christ in his lifetime. “His blood be on us and on our children!” was a way of correcting Mark’s prophesy. He had no concept that Jews through the centuries would be punished for Christ’s crucifixion. Vatican II made that distinction official doctrine. But that’s part of what makes this film problematic.
The Gospels are not Gibson’s real basis for the film. The writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, which were repudiated by Vatican II, serve as the inspiration for Gibson’s story. That work is extremely anti-Semitic. It is an old fashioned, 18th century European Catholic version of events.
Gibson is an old-fashioned Catholic who thinks Vatican II was a mistake and is invalid. His film is told in an old-fashioned, traditional Catholic way. He’s pulled off a marketing coup of sorts in making his primary advocates for the film a group of Sun Belt American Protestants. For Dr. Fredriksen that raises a warning flag.
She wonders what it says about us as Americans when the combination of Celebrity Culture, mass marketing, public relations, and polarized public discourse combine to have this old type of Catholic movie being eagerly promoted by modern Protestants.
I think one thing it says is that the film is already doing great work in bringing the Christian message of redemption to a wider audience. But the polarized debate on the historical accuracy of the work has already caused problems.
Again, Dr. Paula Fredriksen, a New Testament and early-Christian Scholar:
Will "Passion" have a negative effect on society? Might it promote anti-Jewish violence? I think it well might. Long cultural habits die hard. Debate around the film has already occasioned ugly anti-Semitic slurs. My university and I have received ominous threats from a furious Christian "Passion" fan. ("I am telling you now that if this woman continues to be employed as a professor, you will be putting your university at risk.") If the publicity-oriented "debate" stirs such feelings now, will the true debate stir fewer feelings once the public can actually view the movie? I doubt it.
She has not seen the film, indeed her comments have been criticized by the filmmakers and other Christians who support the film. But is it really support of the film, or is it support of Christianity? Why do some see criticism of the film as criticism of Christianity? Part of that naswer lies in the fact that many Christians see histtory itself as the enemy of Christianity.
The animosity exhibited by some of the film’s supporters towards anyone who questions Gibson’s claims of historical accuracy is worrisome. It is Gibson, who markets his work as true to scripture and historically realistic. So we have a little problem. A big part of the controversy is the threat of anti-Semitism resurging. But with that problem comes opportunity. As she wrote earlier this month in Christian Science Monitor:
My point is that the toxic tradition - Jews killed Jesus; all Jews everywhere are culpable; when something bad happens to them, it is no less than they deserve - is very much alive. The film, if unaltered, is inflammatory, and potentially dangerous.
My responsibility is to speak out - not against the film so much as against the ignorance and the unselfconscious anti-Judaism that it so dramatically embodies. Gibson has given us a priceless opportunity for public education. Out of the ivory tower, past the Cineplex, into the churches and interfaith communities, this teachable moment now serves as the silver lining that shines within the looming dark cloud of Gibson's "Passion."
It won’t matter, when I see the film, whether I think it will encourage more anti-Semitism. It will only matter if “the ignorance and the unselfconscious anti-Judaism” embodied in the film is embraced by a significant number of its viewers. I’m confident that we Americans will be capable of handling the phenomenon by taking advantage of the educational opportunity. In America the “teachable moment” will be used well. This telling of the Passion, in 21st Century America will not result in the type violence that accompanied Passion plays of the past.
I don’t believe Mel Gibson is making a film he wants to be anti-Semitic. I believe his intentions are all good. I’m sure he’s taken some of the criticism to heart and has re-written the early versions. Still, not everyone will take the same message from the film. I’m looking forward to seeing it myself and hope to see it the first day. As I’m more interested in the audience reaction than I am in the substance of the film, I want to see it with a crowd, and I want to be reassured that mostly good will come of it. I want and need that reassurance because my fears are not unfounded.
The power of film as a media is immense. Gibson makes terrific action films. This story is one that means very much to very many people. The Passion of Christ is an emotionally charged subject. Emmerich’s work was anti-Semitic and it was the inspiration for Gibson’s story. Gibson touts his story as the most true to life, historically accurate portrayal of the events ever made. There are historical errors in the film. Not all Christians will warm to Gibson’s version of Catholicism. Most of the film’s customers will not be New Testament scholars… many will take the film as fact. There have been vigorous, mean spirited attacks on Christian critics of the film… even threats. Some Christians have felt the need to defend Christianity by defending the film. Ugly things can happen when strongly opinionated people and/or zealous believers are put on the defensive. Yes, the combination of these facts makes me uneasy.
I’ll watch the film with curiosity, and with hope that the more optimistic predictions of the films impact are right. Gibson should not get a free pass for making a film with good intentions, nor should he be vilified or even criticized for making it. If he tells us the film is true to the Gospels, he should expect those who disagree to point out the inconsistencies. I have no doubt he’ll gladly accept the praise and responsibility for all of the good that comes from the work. Will he be willing to accept the bad?
Updated 2/23/04. Thanks, Lynn.
« close
Great comments - I agree with you. We should all face the music for the choices we make.
In the Son