[churchillbuff]

More anti-christian garbage from somebody who's revealing his true colors. He's all for christians when they're dying on the battlefields of Iraq -- in a war he supported loudly - - - but they have their faith depicted on film (unless Jewish authorities are allowed to approve and censor the depiction) without being denounced with slimy smears. What a lowlife creep.

[shhrubbery!]

With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Krauthammer and some other critics of this movie seem remarkably blind. They see only negative portrayals of Jews. Rabbi Joe Patasnik (sp?) here in NYC has been complaining that only the Jews are portrayed with bad teeth and "hook noses."

I just saw The Passion today, and I noticed:

(1) Only a couple of the Jews portrayed had "hook-noses" -- and they were the GOOD GUYS (or in one case, it was a woman: Veronica). Perhaps the most prominent "hook nose" in the whole movie was that of PETER (Cephas), the disciple.

(2) Some of the Romans had WAY worse teeth than any of the Jews.

(3) There are many good Jews in the movie, starting with Jesus himself. Add to that all the disciples (except Judas), Mary, Mary Magdalene, Veronica, Simon who helped carry the cross, the crucified criminal who sought redemption, and the many weeping people in the crowd who accompany Jesus to Golgotha).

These complaints about anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews are silly. I have to believe that Krauthammer, usually a very perceptive man, had blinders on when he watched The Passion.

[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,

[wimpycat]

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

[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.

[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.

[AnalogReigns]

I just sent this to Dr. Krauthammer--someone who's oppinions I usually respect highly:

Dear Dr. Krauthammer,

I'm surprised you find The Passion of The Christ so anti-Semitic. I realize the history-within-a-history that the Bible story is related to, and Christians should be careful to tell the truth tactfully--as cultural Christians (not necessarily real ones) have persecuted the Jewish people for a long time. However, other than the Satan figure (which kind of bothered me--as it is extra-biblical--but seems wholly unlinked to anyone around him, and fully ignored by the Jewish crowds) Gibson's portray IS very faithful to the gospel accounts.

Assuming a Christian understanding of inerrancy of the texts, of course the accounts need to be harmonized, in which case one leaves out nothing, but adds in everything that one can work in that any of the 4 Gospels mentions. The scourging is this way, as is the plotting and real hatred of certain Jewish leaders in the day of the Jewish Jesus, of the party of Pharisees and Saduccees. Did this include all of them? No. And Mel Gibson also adds Jewish leaders DEFENDING Jesus in the counsel (that's not in the Gospel accounts).

All the key player heroes (Jesus, Peter, John, other disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene etc.) were all clearly JEWISH. Gibson bent over backwards to make that clear. Nicodemus, Joseph of Aramathea, (Pharisees the Bible tells us who opposed Jesus' execution) and probably the 2nd biggest hero of the film, Simon of Cyrene, who carries the cross, are also all in the film, and are also clearly identified as Jewish.

The Roman scourging was the most brutal part in the film....and we know historically scourging was incredibly horrifying -- those skilled in it would try to bring their victim to the edge of death, and leave him there; such was what Gibson portrayed. The Bible is often very terse in its historic accounts. Perhaps it was written that way on purpose, so are imagination would fill in the blanks vividly. Everything Gibson portrayed COULD have happened that way (or it could have happened another way)...nothing that I can find clearly CONTRADICTS the Gospels. I honestly did not notice Gibson adding that Caiaphas watched the scourging....which you're right is an addition....but why would it be surprising that one man who hated another (as the Gospels clearly indicate of Caiaphas) would watch such an event? It is totally faithful to the gist of the story. How can a history of one group of people killing the leader of another group, in their same nation--over religious jealousies--be told tactfully?

Gibson's portrayal IS as brutal as it possibly could have been. That is a legitimate criticism--that maybe the brutality was overly done. However, every single other portrayal I have ever witnessed downplayed the reality of Jesus suffering, of who it was said, "Just as there were many who were appalled at him--his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness- so will he sprinkle many nations" (Isaiah 52:14, 15)

Christians genuinely believe, "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." and that also, "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53: 4-6)

I know that is highly offensive to those of the Jewish faith, but it is an essential, no, THE essential to following the Jewish carpenter-rabbi Jesus.

Any familiarity at all with the New Testament will admit the bitter opposition the Jewish followers of Christ got from some of the very powerful Jewish leadership. Christians in the early church for a couple generations were mostly all Jews, hence it was during that time an internecine quarrel. Any rational look will not consider this story, or this movie, anti-Semitic.

You don't have to like the Gospels, and you can try to disprove them, but trying to say Gibson was being anti-Semitic, you have to say the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic.

I'm sorry Dr. Krauthammer; I agree with your tempered perspective most of the time but in this case you've lost your temper and your edge.

Sincerely,

[macJoyful]

Part of the problem is that Jews and Christians view two different movies when they see The Passion. This according to The Chosen People Ministries can be addressed by a better understanding of Jewish concerns.

To get a better understanding, go to their web site:
http://www.chosenpeople.com/debate/tips.html

Here's a brief excerpt from their web page:

"How should you respond to your Jewish friends who are concerned about the impact of the film, The Passion of the Christ, on the worldwide Jewish community?

"As you may know, the release of the film, The Passion of the Christ, greeted with great enthusiasm among Christians, is causing some deep concerns among Jewish people worldwide.

"The following suggestions will help you respond to your Jewish friends in understanding and love, and enable you to use the message of the film to bring those you love closer to the Messiah Jesus.

"Below are a few common responses well-meaning believers have shared with their Jewish friends, not fully understanding how these responses are being understood. "

"The Well-Meaning Response:

"Pointing out to your Jewish friends that "our sins killed Jesus."

"The Misunderstanding:

"This presumes that Jewish people are familiar with the New Testament, but most often they are not.
This assumes Jewish people accept Christian theological views of sin, guilt, and substitutionary atonement.
This also assumes Jewish people accept New Testament documents as true history and authentic.

"The Well-Meaning Response:

"Pointing out that Jesus is God and no one could kill Him

"The Misunderstanding:

This presumes your Jewish friend accepts that Jesus is God.
This underestimates the abhorrence and complete lack of understanding of Jewish people to this doctrine.

"The Well-Meaning Response:

"Pointing out that His death was predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

"The Misunderstanding:

"This presumes that your Jewish friend is familiar with the Bible (Old Testament).
This presumes your Jewish friend believes in prophecy.
This presumes your Jewish friend believes in two comings of the Messiah and that Messiah had to suffer.
This presumes your Jewish friend believes that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies."

[Radioactive]

I bet Krauthammer hates Germans.

Why else would he be called a Kraut Hammer?

[Coleus]

NJ Catholic priest was so appalled by Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ'' that he described the film as "religious barbarism.'' "I saw it as religious barbarism ... in my opinion, God did not send his son to die,''

[nutmeg]

find later bump

[MEG33]

FYI

[ContraryMary]

I'm disappointed in Krauthammer. I thought he was more intelligent than that.

[Theophilus]

And in the story, they come off rather badly

To some this is just a "story" but to others this is HISTORY. Surely Krauthammer knows that in history and truth, it does not matter who comes off badly.

Romans 11:32 - "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

For later.

[GulliverSwift]

Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai.

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.

How ignorant. Krauthammer ought to know that every religion "involves other people." Islam specifically repudiates all other religions as says that Mohammed is the final and ultimate profitphet. Judaism similarly could be adjudged to be anti-Egyptian in its roots. And it certainly has many things spoken against the Phonecians and other ancient Semitic peoples. Buddhism talks about Siddharta's failure to find enlightenment in Hinduism and other religions...

[CaraM]

I found a tract on the "Jews for Jesus" website, entitled: The Passion, What are the Facts? It addresses the claim of Anti-Semitism in a simple (cartoon-like) way. I printed out a stack of them and will hand them out to any critic I can find.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

I'm surprised at this article because I usually agreed with Krauthammer in the past. Most Jewish journalists are upset about The Passion, which follows the Bible, IMO, and they're never going to accept this movie. They've managed to create a blockbuster with their publicity.

[k2blader]

Krauthammer is completely off kilter on this one. What is his problem??