Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Aquinasfan]

Et tu, Krauthammer?

Good answer. Haven't they realized that the more they attack the movie the more they generate interest and ticket sales? Oh well.

As for Mel, rejoice when you are persecuted for His name's sake.

[Zechariah11]

Did Schindler's List create massive hatred for the Germans? Did Pearl Harbor do the same for the Japanese? Jews have more to fear from militant Muslims than they do from the patrons of this movie.

I am a conservative evangelical who has always supported Israel and the Jews, but I see an anti-Christian animus (eg. stop-Gibson, ACLU efforts, etc) from that corner which evokes ten times the reaction than anything in Gibson's film.

[Zechariah11]

Stands2reason asked "Did you see the film?"

Your reply?

[Agnes Heep]

Stands2reason asked "Did you see the film?"

Your reply?

Have you ever committed sodomy?

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Here's the email I sent to Mr. Krauthammer about this article:

Dear Mr. Krauthammer,

I was sorry to read your impassioned attack on Mel Gibson in your article "Gibson's Blood Libel " in today's WP. Normally I love your sharp, conservative commentary and I root you on as you slay liberal dragons in your columns and as a TV pundit.
But I think you missed the boat in your accusation of antisemitism for both Mel Gibson and "The Passion of Christ". I know you're a reasonable man, so I will try to reason with you.

You wrote "Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of co-religionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly. "

There's no denying that the Sanhedrin are the villains in the gospels. They opposed Jesus, they sought to kill him, and succeeded in the end in pressuring Pilate to kill him. What I have never understood is, how is this action by a small group of leaders construed as blood libel against the entire race of Jewish people? I wonder at both the Church of the middle ages as well as the critics of Mel Gibson who interpret his movie this way. For the death of Jesus is the death of a Jew. This so-called anti-semitic act is a small group of Jews manuvering the Romans to kill another Jew. How can the guilt of the subset of the Sanhedrin (not all agreed with the trial at night, as the movie showed) be conveyed to all the Jewish people? Especially considering that all the apostles and most of the early Church were all Jewish?

Christianity was considered a form of Judaism by the Roman government until the 70's. Christians continued to observe the Biblical holy days into the fourth century C.E. This is why I consider the misuse of the passion story by the Church simply an irrational falsehood and irrelevant to the gospel account. The schism between Judaism and Christianity started with the influx of Gentiles in the first century, but accelerated when the Church acquired political power. I see the persecution of the Jews by the Church as a political tool to provide a scapegoat, just as Hitler did.

You wrote also "Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers. "

That was a good and right decision by the Vatican. But in terms of the movie, the issue isn't what was misused later on, but what happened in Jerusalem, according to the gospels. The anti-semiticism of which we speak did not enter into the picture for hundreds of years. And the gospels by themselves cannot be considered to be anti-semitic since all the protagonists were Jews and the antagonists were part of the Sanhedrin and the Roman governor.

Thus, when you write: "The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent." --I agree the horrible result of the Holocaust is the result of anti-semitism which had festered in "Christian" Europe for a millenia. I do not agree this is the result of the gospel story. Rather, this is the result of a lack of Christianity, a repudiation of Jesus' own example of loving and forgiving his enemies. I see ignorant masses being politically manipulated using the gospel--perverting it--into hatred of Jews, diverting their attention from the ruling elite who were really responsible for much of their misery.

Further, your comment: "Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews." does not stand. You feel he rejects Vatican II teaching about the not using the gospel to attack the Jews, because you think he attacked them in the movie. How do you square that with his sympathetic portrayal of Mary, John, Simon of Cyrene, and other Jewish characters?

The portrayal of Pilate not sympathetic, despite what some have said. Here's a guy who thinks Jesus is innocent, and to mollify the crowd has Jesus scourged to within an inch of his life. Not very nice, it seems to me. Then, when he sees the crowd and the Sanhedrin threatens to go to Caesar with a complaint, has Jesus crucified to keep his job--even though he still thinks Jesus is innocent. Not very sympathetic, but accurate to the Biblical account, and other historical sources, such as Josephus. This negative portrait of Pilate and the sadistic Roman torturers is balanced with the sympathetic portrait of Pilate's wife. If the movie cannot be said to be anti-Roman, how could it be considered anti-Jewish?

You also state: "And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10. "

The amount of time devoted to the scourging in the gospels is not relevant to how long it is portrayed in the movie. Mel Gibson was trying for a realistic portrayal of this punishment, one with which we're totally unfamiliar. The scourging may have taken ten minutes or more. Any portrayal of torture is horrible to see and we want it over as soon as possible. I think Mel had Isaiah 52 and Psalm 22 in mind, where of the "suffering servant" it is said:
Isaiah 52:14
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

and Psalm 22:17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.

You also felt Mel's invention of Satan appearing among the Sanhedrin was antisemitic. Certainly from a Christian perspective, Satan is opposed to Jesus and all he stands for. Although this was an invention, I don't think it was anti-semitic, for the same reasons I've already cited. Satan appears in the garden (appropriately, considering Genesis 3), at the scourging, during the walk to Golgotha, and at the crucifixion. Romans were also present there. I fail to see how this is especially anti-semitic when Satan is seen in the gospels as the chief opponent of Jesus, a Jew.

If you've read this far, I congratulate you on your open-mindedness, regardless of whether I've persuaded you at all. Thank you for your consideration. I'll certainly continue to consider your essays and commentary.

Sincerely,

[rmmcdaniell]

Folks here forget he's pro-gun control too.

Many more have forgotten that he is for slavery reparations as well.

[dennisw]

Two clowns ...... thanks. And here I thought Hoffman was a doddering idiot in his 80s.

[cookcounty]

" The Israel-first evangelicals perhaps will have their eyes opened by the anti-christian viciousness displayed by some of the neoconservatives, now that the Passion has hit a nerve. The neoconservatives demand loyalty from the evangelicals, for Israel, but a lot of them in their heart repay that loyalty with contempt and hatred for the evangelicals' religion."

I think you (and many others here) protest too much. Is Abe Foxman correct in his views? No, but there is a strong inner logic nonetheless that needs to be understood. For 3,000 years Jewish existence has been threatened from every quarter, including big fans of "Passion Plays." The Jews would be nuts not to be a little fearful.

I saw the movie. I thought it was great. American Christians have a contextualized enough understanding of the New Testament to avoid falling into hatreds and revenges over this film (it makes me proud to be an American). But what happens when this film hits the screens of Europe, of Russia, of the muslim world? I'm a little worried by that. I pray that I'm totally wrong.

[dennisw]

Great words, thanks.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Your comments remind me of my own email to Krauthammer--only more succinct. See this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1091133/posts?page=865#865

[ambrose]

.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Hi Mojo,

Think he'll reply to my email?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1091133/posts?page=865#865

[wimpycat]

Wow. Stick to politics, Mr. Krauthammer. Christianity is definitely not your forte.

[rbmillerjr]

"Think he'll reply to my email? "

After he responds to thousands of others lol. Don't count on it, although you wrote an excellent refutation.

I hope the "wolf criers" keep it up until Easter. The long lines will keep growing.

[SoCar]

I haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to. It does however seem as if there might be an element of antisemitism here. I cannot be certain but I can't totally discount what respected Conservative Jews have to say.

What I can say for certain is that Mel Gibson is an anti-semite. His response to his father's Holocaust revisionism as recorded by David From speaks volumes. Like Krauthammer I don't want his prayers. Why does he pray for the Jews I wonder?

Another aspect of this movie that I find disturbing is the underlying, and sometimes out in the open, sentiment by some Christians the this may be a tool to convert people. The local radio station urged movie goers to take along a "nonbeliever." I can only assume by that they mean not just atheists, but all non Christians as well. One caller spoke of his Jewish friend who was moved by tears seeing this film. The host asked if she was going to convert.

This Jew does not want to convert, be proselytized to, or worse yet be prayed for so I don't go to eternal damnation. My beliefs are different then yours. Please respect my religion as I respect yours.

[vbmoneyspender]

True, but only Judaism, Christianity and Islam have ever believed in killing or forcibly converting the non-believer. Every other religion I know of has been satisfied with looking down on non-believers.

How about the state religion of Rome, which recognized Caesar as a god? I seem to recall that certain Christians, otherwise known as 'Martyrs', used to get fed to cute little animals like lions because they wouldn't acknowledge that Caesar was a god.

[SoCar]

Which, goes to prove, they do not believe that Christ is the Savior - they believe he was only a man and horribly resent the fact they are shown killing him. Why would they care if Christ was only a man? I suggest the author quit worrying about how Jews are depicted and worry about what Jews believe about Christ. I would think this would be far more important than whether or not the world thinks they were Christ-killers.

What the hell are you saying??

[rbmillerjr]

"It does however seem as if there might be an element of antisemitism here."

WHERE?

[Cold Heat]

More anti-christian garbage from somebody who's revealing his true colors.

Easy on the rhetoric Churchill.

We all know this man is not a nut case.

There is something at work here that bears similarity to the same devilish thing that was at work at the time of Jesus and resulted in his death.

I do not pretend to understand the fears expressed by many of Jewish faith, but I cannot condemn this man for having it, nor can I condemn all the others for sharing it.

If we do, then we have learned nothing from the film. Nothing at all.

[Servant of the 9]

True, but only Judaism, Christianity and Islam have ever believed in killing or forcibly converting the non-believer. Every other religion I know of has been satisfied with looking down on non-believers.

How about the state religion of Rome, which recognized Caesar as a god? I seem to recall that certain Christians, otherwise known as 'Martyrs', used to get fed to cute little animals like lions because they wouldn't acknowledge that Caesar was a god.

The difference is that Rome never required anyone to renounce their own Gods or do more than make nominal obeisance to Caesar. It was a matter of political loyalty, not faith.

So9