The Greatest Story Ever Picketed

A.O. Scott looks at the debate over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in a sharp piece for The New York Times today. He uses the brouhaha as a starting point to explore the history of New Testament cinema, from Technicolor Biblical spectacles like the 1959 Ben-Hur to more experimental fare like The Gospel According to St. Matthew, and from the religious know-nothings who condemned The Last Temptation of Christ sight unseen to the secular know-nothings doing the same thing to Gibson's picture. I wish he'd had space to get into the bizarre religious movies of the 1920s -- Noah's Ark, the original Ben-Hur -- but one can't have everything…

Comments

[Andrew Lynch]

In his terrific book, Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen cites "what Michael W. Apple and Linda K. Christian-Smith call dominance through mentioning." He uses the term to describe how heroistic historians bury unflattering aspects of otherwise fascinating historical events behind a veil of denial, which, in the end, just makes horrible things that happened more palatable to the presumably thin-skinned modern human. If these horrible events are even acknowledged.

The culpability of Jews in Jesus' incarceration is for people far smarter than me to debate. I'll be too busy fussing over gay marriage (not) to give a rat's ass.

What's much more interesting is that, regardless of the Jews' involvement, someone is trying to thwart controversy and open debate.

[Mona]

Jesse, it is not clear to me whether you were attempting a rhetorical device in writing of "no-nothings," but the correct term is "Know-Nothing," from an anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant movement in the 19th century U.S. whose byword was"I Know Nothing" to any who would inquire about their suspected activites to route out filthy papist immigrants.

[Jesse Walker]

I of course meant "know-nothings." The "no" was an embarrassing typo/mindglitch, caused by a foolish attempt to blog and call somebody at the same time. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll fix it forthwith.

(The lack of capitalization stays, though, because I'm not referring to the original Know-Nothing Party.)

[Jean Bart]

Several rabbis who have seen the film found it anti-semetic; so saying that criticism is "sight unseen" is incorrect (and perhaps disingenuous).

[thoreau]

On the blame assigned to Jews for the death of Jesus:

I'm a Catholic. I went to Catholic school. When I heard the story of the crowd saying to Pilate "Let his blood be on us and our children", my first thought was of Jesus's parable about judgement day. Jesus says that those who get into heaven will be told "When I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was naked you clothed me..." etc. The guys with VIP passes into heaven say "When did we ever do that for you? We never ran into you in life" and Jesus says "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people that you do unto me."

So, I always figured that the blood of Christ must be on the people who joined that angry mob, and on any of their successors who join angry mobs to condemn innocent people. I figured "children" must be a metaphor for their successors, and that their successors would be anybody who adopts a similar role, since Jesus said that whatever we do unto the weak and unpopular we do unto Him. It never occured to me that this was something specific to Jews, and the teachers never said anything of the sort.

I know, I know, a lot of people here are atheists or agnostics. I'm not trying to sell anybody on my particular theology, I'm just observing that, as a Christian, I never understood the notion that Christianity assigns any guilt to the Jews.

[Jesse Walker]

Several rabbis who have seen the film found it anti-semetic; so saying that criticism is "sight unseen" is incorrect (and perhaps disingenuous).

I did not say that everyone who criticized the movie is doing so sight-unseen. Not everyone who criticized The Last Temptation of Christ did so sight-unseen either. But in both cases there's been a lot of noise from people who haven't watched the damn picture.

Also, rabbis aren't "secular," so they wouldn't fall into the group I described anyway.

At any rate, I haven't seen the movie, so I won't weigh in on whether it's anti-Semitic or not. For all I know it includes a lengthy sequence in which hook-nosed Jewish bankers drink baby blood while poisoning a well and cackling that the Holocaust never happened. But that wasn't the point of my post.

[Mona]

Don't feel bad, Jesse. Hell, I had typos in my questioning of your phrasing. I'm the typo queen everywhere I post.

[Dan]

the secular know-nothings doing the same thing to Gibson's picture

I am assuming, sight unseen, that the picture will be anti-semetic. My reason for assuming this is simple -- I'm taking Gibson at his word, that he'll be completely faithful to the story of the crucifixion. And the story of the crucifixion is, itself, the world's oldest anti-semetic hoax.

Explanation:

It is understood, by secular (and many sectarian) New Testament scholars, that story of Christ's crucifixion cannot possibly be true. The Jews did not ask the Romans to execute heretics; they did it themselves. The Romans did not pardon criminals at the request of the Jews; Pilate in particular HATED the Jews, and was quite vicious to them. They certainly would never have pardoned a known rebel just to execute a Jewish heretic. Then there's the weird coincidence that the other criminal was *also* named Jesus, called "the Son of the Father" (Barabbas). And of course, no crowd of people is going to yell "his blood be on us and our children". The whole story stinks to high heaven, if you stop to think about it for just a minute.

What probably happened is something like this: the Romans killed Jesus, for rebellion. Much later, Romans Christians -- ie, the people who redacted and assembled the New Testament and most of its books -- were faced with the task of reconciling Rome's execution of the "son of God" with the fact that they, themselves, were Roman patriots. So, big surprise, the Jews (a perpetually-rebellious pain in Rome's ass) get the full blame: they framed Jesus, took full credit for it, and forced Romans to kill him.

So -- to sum up -- I believe Gibson. I think he really is making an "accurate" movie of the crucifixion... which is a bit like making an "accurate" adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[Paul]

This list is incomplete as any true religious cinema scholar would immediately recognize. They forgot "life of Brian."

Dan, your explanation works for me, in the spirit of Life Of Brian, I am removing one of my shoes and following your lead.

[Pavel]

It is important to remember that early Christians were not so much Christians as just another wacky offshoot of Judaism.

These sects hated each other. From the little history of that period that I know, The Life of Brian seems like equal parts farce and accurate portrayal.

As far as the whole Jews killed Jesus thing. It isn't hard to imagine how such an "anti-semitic" story got its start from the sea of historico-mythical revisionism that was a centerpiece of the politics and culture of a still fledgling Jewish society.

So basically what I'm saying is, if you're looking for someone to blame for all this scapegoating, blame the Jews. They started it.

[Douglas Fletcher]

God did it. See John 3:16.

[some guy]

Garym is absolutely right; if there really were a God (by the way - which one?), I would have to tell Him, "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. You're just not my kind of people."

[dj of raleigh]

Were the Jews responsible for the Romans killing a Jew?
Would the Jews have killed a man for breaking all their rules?
Were women really stoned to death for adultry?
Was it wrong to heal on the Sabbath?
Are secularists arguing about a movie that is subtitled?
Can such things be possible?

[JB Allen]

Hey, if your sense of right and wrong precludes the idea of God, Supreme Being, whatever, that's fine. Take God out of the equation, and replace it with a value system you hold dear: the story still resonates with the idea that even if you betray your own beliefs, and those beliefs are worth having, your betrayal won't change their value. Regardless of whether the universe is just and fair and we get some great reward in the end (personally, any belief that requires a reward doesn't seem like much of a belief), it doesn't follow that knowledge of what's right means one acts accordingly.

So what I'm saying is, if Gibson's movie does portray the Passion as about how Jews suck and Gentiles rock, well, that's pretty lame. But the story doesn't have to be that way, and reading it as that and only that from a Christian, aethiest, or whatever perspective doesn't say much for the reader.

[KJ]

You nailed it, Jean Bart!

It's quite interesting: as long as Mel Gibson was just a nice "Pommie-bashing" anglophobe, noone of today's critics bothered even to rise an eyebrow about his demonizing of the English.

But of course anglophobia is far more accepted a bigotry than anti-semitism, in 'polite society' at least.

[Dan]

I'm not asking you to believe in the Son of God, but just to acknowledge that if, by some bizarre twist in the laws of physics, there really is a God, and God could actually prove it to you, so you had no excuse whatsoever to deny God's existence, you might still turn your back on God when the going got tough.

That argument amused me when I (repeatedly) heard it in Sunday School; it continues to amuse today.

It's a myth, JB; people who truly believe in God don't turn their back on him -- not unless they are very, very stupid, which I most certainly am not. He's (supposedly) all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere; furthermore, he's got a vengeful streak, and is capable of holding enough of a grudge that he required the death of his own son before he could forgive humanity.

And this is somebody I'd "turn my back on" when the "going gets tough"? I'd demand that his *son* be killed? Maybe you would, but a rational mind sees the smart call to make here. If there is a God, you'd damned well better do what he says if you know what's good for you. I only ignore him because he doesn't exist. 🙂

[stubby]

Jesus was a Jew; he lived among Jews; to the extent that the crowd really called for his blood, it had to be a Jewish crowd. Could hardly have been Gallic or Germanic or Scythian or anyone but Jews. Jews and Roman soliders. Had Jesus been a Greek, it would have all gone down a few miles to the northwest and it would have been a Greek crowd getting riled up against him. And regardless, everyone was set up by God. So it's stupid to "blame" the Jews (and I don't believe in historic collective guilt.)

But what's in the Bible is in the Bible; telling the story as the Gospels tell it doesn't make Gibson an antisemite. His daddy is a big ol crazy antisemite paleocatholic, but that's not Mel's fault.

[JB Allen]

Dan, I enjoy watching athiests try to be something other than frustrated fundamentalists. In your view, apparently, God is either a big mean bastard who only might be nice to you if you kiss his ass, or there is no God, and religion can't teach us anything. And thank goodness that once we've determined a story isn't factually correct, it isn't worth bothering with. Well, at least that saves you from many pointless hours spent contemplating the arts or other such nonsense.

Really, I have no interest in arguing that there might possibly be another take on Christianity. My point was merely that the story (or myth, or whatever makes you comfortable) of Christ's death can be seen as a lesson that right knowledge doesn't necessarily mean right behavior, a point with which you disagree. You're not alone in this view, although it strikes me as odd that you're expressing this view at the website for "Free Minds."

Sinner.

[garym]

Assume that everything described in the Gospels concerning Jesus's crucifixion (smoothing over the contradictions and omitting the miracles) actually happened. It would simply mean that someone orchestrated a crowd to help insure that Jesus was crucified, not that "the Jews" called for his crucifixion. Look at any large rally in the US today; they may claim to be speaking for "the Americans," but they're a particular crowd selected by organizers. It would be a nice touch if Gibson's movie presented the crowd as in the Bible, but also showed friends of Caiphas gathering the mob, saying "Wine for everybody afterwards!" I don't plan to see the movie, though, for reasons unrelated to religion; it sounds too bloody for my taste, and I only went to two theatrical movies in 2003.

The Know-Nothing party, incidentally, wasn't the actual name of the party; I think they were called the American party.

[Phil]

Gordon Shumway hits it out of the park. According to Christian theology, somebody had to do it. What, if Jesus had walked into town and been accepted by all of Jerusalem as the Messiah, everything would have been cool? The atonement, in Christian theology, was not an either/or -- it was a but-for. He wasn't about to say, "Aw, you crazy kids, you're all saved now!" He'd have been up on a ladder with hammer and nails, saying, "Come on, someone's gotta do this, or the salvation's off! I can't nail myself up here, you know!"

It just goes to show the confused, muddled thoughts of a great many religious types: "The crucifixion and resurrection had to happen for me to achieve forgiveness and salvation, but damn those damned Jews for killing Jesus!"

[dhex]

demonizing the english?

(having never seen braveheart nor the patriot, mind you. though his remake of payback was actually ok)

[dhex]

for what its worth, this whackjob agnostic religious studies nerd is excited about the passion. should be a good time.

[JB Allen]

As a Christian with a strong dislike for fundamentalist thinking, I find that some of these responses are perfect examples of Mr. Walker's "secular know-nothings." My own take on the story of the betrayal of Jesus was not that it involved people too awful for us to identify with, but that it involved people we should identify with. If the righteous people, even the most righteous people, could turn their backs on the Son of God, then we could all do this. For all you terrible sinners out there, I'm not asking you to believe in the Son of God, but just to acknowledge that if, by some bizarre twist in the laws of physics, there really is a God, and God could actually prove it to you, so you had no excuse whatsoever to deny God's existence, you might still turn your back on God when the going got tough.

Granted, this lesson in humility has at times been used to justify repression, but if it helps keep some from thinking their shit doesn't stink, then I don't think it's a bad lesson.

[Jean Bart]

Jesse Walker,

I know your qualifications, but other commentators have intimated (not here) that all those criticizing it have never seen it. Accordingly my comments weren't really directed at yours and I should have been more clear about such.

BTW, I expect his film to be as accurate as "Braveheart" and "Patriot" were. Now he demonizes Jews instead of the English.

[Gordon Shumway]

My Grammy would always say to me, "If it wasn't for those Jews setting Jesus up, and those I-talians laying the wood to him, you and me wouldn't be going to heaven. So be nice to them."

[garym]

Well, yes, even if it were demonstrated to me that there was a God, my opinion of Him as a deity would be a separate question, especially if He admitted responsibility for some of the actions attributed to Him in the Bible.,

[dj of raleigh]

Athesists sure like to talk about god a lot.

[Jean Bart]

JB Allen,

"Alright, so it's OK to pigeon-hole or stereotype those who express a belief in some religion, but it's not OK to pigeon-hole those who believe in leading a life free of such superstition?"

Who is pigeon holing anyone but individuals? I am not.

dj of raleigh,

Yes, atheists should never discuss theism; that would be horrible. And to be frank, I find that it is the reverse that is really true; many Christians are obssessed with atheists and in efforts to marginalize and otherwise demonize them.

[Dan]

In your view, apparently, God is either a big mean bastard who only might be nice to you if you kiss his ass, or there is no God, and religion can't teach us anything.

I'm impressed -- you've managed to establish a false dichotomy between two straw men, which is rare even for the Internet. I made no claim that religion can't teach us anything, and I didn't advocate "kissing God's ass".

People who knowingly deny God suffer after they die; that is the view of the majority of Christian sects. As I know this, I would not knowingly deny the Christian God. It's not a "kiss his ass" thing, it's an enlightened self-interest thing. I would also like to point out that there is a long Christian tradition of using the "you'd better do what God says, or else" argument as a reason for being Christian, whether we're talking Pascal's Wager or "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". Amusingly enough, you sneer at my alleged rejection of "what religion has to teach us" while utterly ignoring a belief held by the overwhelming majority of Christians and Christian theologians that have ever lived: that people who knowingly reject God get severely punished.

right knowledge doesn't necessarily mean right behavior

Yes, but like much of Christian teaching, it doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in. It's one thing to know that stealing is wrong and still swipe bubblegum from the supermarket checkout line. It's quite another to tell the almost-universally-believed-to-be-"cranky" Creator of the Universe to go fuck Himself, and nail His son to a cross.

You're not alone in this view, although it strikes me as odd that you're expressing this view at the website for "Free Minds."

As the saying goes, there is no point in having a mind so open that your brains fall out of your head. In the strictly literal sense, everything is possible; the Moon may suddenly turn into an enormous Hulk Hogan clone and suplex Iran into Saudi Arabia. So in that literal sense, what you suggest is possible.

I am not, however, obligated to entertain the possibility that I might do something I would consider utterly insane, just because you choose to entertain the possibility that you might. How you choose to waste your thought processes is your business; I choose to concern myself only with possibilities that *aren't* many orders of magnitude less likely than my getting struck by lightning.

[dj of raleigh]

I said: Athesists sure like to talk about god a lot.

JB replied to me: Yes, atheists should never discuss theism;

Just to be clear, I didn't say Athesists "should never,"
Jean Bart said that, I just said that they do.
One thing tho, they don't come knocking at the door!

[garym]

JB Allen:
I think the point the others are trying to make is that the people responsible for Jesus' crucifixion didn't regard him as the Son of God, and very likely would have acted differently if they thought he was. Jesus didn't set up a great light show in a public place and proclaim his Godhood. According to the Bible, he said on the cross, "They know not what they do." If Judas, Caiphas and Pilate had thought they were dealing with an avatar of God, it's conceivable that they would still have decided to crucify him, but doing so would have gone well outside the bounds of most people's sense of self-preservation.

The general point you make is true: People can act stupidly. But stupidly enough to launch a frontal attack on a deity?

In any case, as I've said already, "the Jews" or "the Romans" weren't guity of anything, regardless of what happened. Guilt applies to specific people, not ethnic groups.

[Andrew Lynch]

"One thing tho, they don't come knocking at the door!"

Thank God for that, dj.

[JB Allen]

Ah, Christ. Well, here we go -

Jean - A few things:

1. Alright, so it's OK to pigeon-hole or stereotype those who express a belief in some religion, but it's not OK to pigeon-hole those who believe in leading a life free of such superstition? Honestly, I'm not too fond of either, but if I'm supposed to get lumped in with Pat Robertson, then why the hell can't I lump Dan in with the comic shop assistant manager whose life was forever changed by "Beyond Good and Evil"?

II. Hey, I find embarrassing myself is a great way to learn stuff. So shaming me into not disagreeing with you isn't going to work.

D. And what's with the assumption that if I disagree or even criticize a viewpoint, it must be because I don't really understand it? Again, this sounds like fundamentalist talk.

The Number "Fourteen". Of course people may have thought Jesus was just a nut-case. Man, I feel like Brian trying to explain the meaning of lillies.

Dan -

"False dichotomy?" "Straw men?" I'm impressed. Maybe you should add this word to your vocabulary: "projection," because that is precisely what you're doing here. You're the one who brought up Mr. Smite Thee, and now you're explaining how the majority of Christians are all about Mr. Smite Thee. So, if I don't hold this view, I'm not really a Christian? Wow, look, another concept: circular logic.

As Gary pointed out, Christ didn't bring the funk at his crucifixion. He just felt badly for the way things went, wondered aloud why he was stuck on the cross, and croaked. This is Mr. Smite Thee, or even Son-of-Smite-Thee? I fail to see how this story is one of cosmic retribution.

[joe]

stubby sez: "But what's in the Bible is in the Bible; telling the story as the Gospels tell it doesn't make Gibson an antisemite."

There are four gospels, with four different passion stories. Gibson, the son of a crackpot Jew hater and supporter of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, coincidently picked the most anti-Semitic story to portray. He then spiced it up by incorporating the mystical visions of a notoriously anti-semitic 17th century nun. And when I say "notoriously anti-semitic," I'm talking about blood-drinking, hook-nosed Christ killers scheming to take over the world. He also included details, such as enlarging the crowd that celebrated his death sentence into a vast mob meant to depict the entire Jewish people, that have been explicitly rejected by the Pope.

Then, when this careful selector of the worst bits from the Bible and incorporator of hallucinations by a hateful late-medieval nun is called on his despicable choices, he claims that he is helpless to make changes in the face of his commitment to historical accuracy. Despite his insistance that Hellenic centurions spoke Latin and numerous other inaccuracies.

Gibson is either actively working to resurrect the nearly-forgotten (in this country, anyway) Christ-killer lie, or he is a dumbfuck stomping around in dangerous territory without caring who gets hurt.

Either way, fuck Mel Gibson.

[Andrew Lynch]

Since there is no God, why precisely are we having this debate?

[Jean Bart]

JB Allen,

"Dan, I enjoy watching athiests try to be something other than frustrated fundamentalists."

I love it when certain types of theists mischaracterize or or otherwise try to pigeon hole atheists. Really, please learn something about atheism and stop embarressing yourself.

[Jean Bart]

JB Allen,

"My point was merely that the story (or myth, or whatever makes you comfortable) of Christ's death can be seen as a lesson that right knowledge doesn't necessarily mean right behavior, a point with which you disagree."

"Right knowledge?" Are you intimating because some fellow claimed to be the messiah that people should have believed him? Jesus was one of numerous crackpots, cranks and otherwise insane people who claimed to be prophets, the messiah, etc., during this time period. Indeed, Judaism had a cottage industry of such people and that had been the case for quite some time.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I don't know why there's all this fuss about Jews and anti-Semites. Everyone knows the font of wickedness is the Masons.

[nobody]

DJ

This "athesist" believes in spell-check.

[tim]

first of all my cousin's belong to the same breakaway church as mel gibson and they are not anti-semites. i really doubt mel gibson is an anti-semite either. could he really have survived in hollywood for 20 years if he was anti-semite? just because his father is a jew hater doesn't make mel a jew-hater. my parents are anti-semites, racists, homophobes, and they hate nicole kidman for dating lenny kravitz, but that doesn't mean i'm a racist. what's really sad is that ironically people are going to see this film because of the controversy. the same people that protested against Last Temptation of Christ and Dogma(like the hypocrital Catholic League) are going to be flocking to see this film hoping that it is in anti-semitic. these are people who love playing the victim role, truly believing that there is a jewish-secular plot to destroy religion in this country. i'm not sure why any would really want to see this film other than the controversy. it's subtitled and it's in hebrew, latin and aramaic. who goes to see a movie in subtitles? everyone knows the plot already, and we get passion plays every year on Good Friday? Is it anti-Semitic?? i don't know. let's wait until the movie comes out. Unfortunately the Bible and the unreliable Gnostic Gospels are the only source of information we have on Jesus, and most of them were written many years after Christ. even though it says the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they weren't actually written by them. so the gospels are biased and written to reflect the biases of christians at the time which was anti-semitic and anti-female(which is why the importance of mary magdalene) was diminished. i understand the fears that jews have that it could incite anti-semitism. but modern anti-semitism has very little to do with the fact that Jews may or may not have killed Jesus. Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews because their ancestors killed Jesus. Hitler wasn't religious, and was probably a pagan. He killed Jews because he was a racist, which i think is a big difference. unfortunately anti-semitism will exist whether this movie came out or not.

[matthew hogan]

Scott's article would have had more impact if he did not describe the conception of Christ as the "Immaculate Conception". The terms refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary was HERSELF conceived without original sin. It is a pedantic fault but not entirely as it shows that in commenting on matters theological he is not totally up to speed.

[dj of raleigh]

> This "athesist" believes in spell-check.