Jewish Commentary: "Passion" Follows the Scripture

The Los Angeles Times ^ | 1/1/04 | David Klinghoffer

[Zechariah11]

Gibson's controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish writings.

According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide.

[bornINravenswood]

Unfortunately, you have to register with the LAtimes in order to read the full article. I didn't and I won't because of their shameless attempt to smear the Governator! A quick objective eye reveals that the link points to a comment/opinion article. Maybe a copy/paste would insure more readers.
But anyway, I believe that if the jewish community would just 'Let it be', it will not be as devastating as they fear.

But then I am my wife can't wait to see it!!

[bornINravenswood]

am = and

:))

[Zechariah11]

I agree about The Slimes but I needed something to read at Starbucks this morning.
Forgive any formatting problems, please:

      'Passion' Follows the Scripture

Gibson's controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish writings.

 By David Klinghoffer
  Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, "The Passion," has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics who charge him with anti-Semitism. It's a controversy that will continue to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion.

According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide.

But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides.

We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around the year 30, but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said about Jesus' execution.

The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions.

A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin, which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor."

The passage indicates that Jesus' fate was entirely in the hands of the Jewish court. The last two of the three items on Jesus' rap sheet, that he "enticed and led astray" fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T — in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).

These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts. The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter.

Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud's Jesus is the one who founded Christianity. In his great summation of Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court." In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides states that "Jesus of Nazareth … interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

It's unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson — Paula Fredriksen, a professor of religious studies at Boston University — is the author of a meticulously researched book, "Jesus of Nazareth," that suggests it was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities.

Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal. The best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death and clear the anger from the air. Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of the "The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism" (Doubleday, 2003) and the upcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In Search of the Turning Point in Western History."

[bornINravenswood]

I think that Paula Fredriksen either fears or knows that the story or movie does not completely coincide with the years of scholarship that she has achieved, her whole adult life. Many christians other than theology students will not want to go into hebrew belief which is based on oral tradition so the majority of people will let the media decide. (most people like Gibson...).
Obviously the choices that the jewish priests made turned Jesus of Nazareth into more than a martyr but a religion and any kind of 'editing' at this point would be labeled as censorship. I suspect that Gibson has enough money to scrap the whole thing before allowing censorship. Besides, he has Billy Graham's thumbs up. I am not certain but I think that the pope gave his 'OK' too. But anyone who knows can correct me :)

[RobbyS]

I saw"The Gospel of John," and ironically it makes it perfectly clear that the leaders of the people were responsible for the death of Jesus. Yet no outcry have I heard about this movie. More than the dispute between Catholic and Jew, this dispute is between liberals and conservatives. Yes, the Vatican, including the pope, has given its approval. However, even there one heards dissidient liberal voices.

[Zechariah11]

More than the dispute between Catholic and Jew, this dispute is between liberals and conservatives. Yes, the Vatican, including the pope, has given its approval.

---

This may be a movie I won't appreciate after viewing, but looking at the liberals lining up to oppose it, I think it will try to be faithful to the Scriptures.

You've got to admire Gibson for "bucking the liberal/Hollywood establishment.

[Coleus]

Jewish Columnist Praises Gibson's The Passion of the Christ for "Accuracy"

February 23, 2004

What's the fuss?

Passion is no more anti-Semitic than the Gospels

By EZRA LEVANT -- Calgary Sun

It's gratifying that the Jews suddenly have so many friends fighting against anti-Semitism.

Trouble is, these newly-minted defenders think that anti-Semitism is to be found in Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion -- where it isn't -- instead of the Arab world, the UN and the world's leftist political movements -- where it is.

The Passion debuts this Wednesday, and Gibson has kept a tight lid on the film. Which means most of its critics did not see the movie before denouncing it as anti-Semitic.

Why condemn it before seeing it?

I saw a 90-second trailer of the movie last July, and "reviewed" that in the Sun. If the whole movie was like that, I wrote, it would be a spectacular piece of film-making -- and an inspiring depiction of the Gospels.

I finally saw the whole movie last month at a private screening at Calgary's First Alliance Church -- I was the only Jew in the house. Because I had publicly defended the movie trailers, I had hoped that I would not have to recant upon seeing the entire film.

Not only was the movie not anti-Semitic, it tinctured the violence of the crucifixion with respites of kindness. During the movie's most wrenching moments -- where Jesus is scourged and crucified -- Gibson cuts away to a scene where Jesus teaches forgiveness and love. It is a powerful reminder of the meaning of the crucifixion -- not a call for vengeance, but a lesson in forgiveness and a reminder of the sinfulness of all Mankind. That is certainly what the Christians sitting around me at the church took from the movie -- that Jesus' suffering was for them, because of their sins, that he suffered willingly and lovingly embracing the opportunity to sacrifice himself for them.

Its detractors cannot seriously criticize the film. It adheres closely to the Bible and the rest is merely artistic licence.

As the only graduate of Hebrew school in the room, I probably found the movie more familiar than most, at least in its sound -- everyone but the Romans spoke Aramaic, a close linguistic relative of Hebrew. Even the Passover Seder was accurate, including the customary Jewish recitals. I wish a Jewish film-maker would do such a beautiful rendering of Passover -- in Hebrew! -- that I can watch in a commercial theatre.

The Passion is no more "anti-Semitic" than the Gospels upon which they are based. It is a historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was tried and condemned by a Jewish court and executed by the Roman army.

For some, that might be an uncomfortable fact, but it is a historical fact, confirmed by secular and Jewish sources.

So what should Jews do about this fact? Not condemn a movie-maker for simply animating what the Bible has always written. Not look with a magnifying glass for reasons to be offended. When the movie opens on Wednesday -- at a blockbuster 3,000 theatres -- all that will happen is that millions of people will realize that the critics were hypersensitive complainers -- or worse, condemning the Bible itself, not just the movie.

That is the real risk posed by the alarmists -- their splenetic criticism, and not the movie itself, will drive a wedge between Christians and Jews.

After the movie ended, there were no shouts of anti-Semitic rage. The mood of the audience was quiet gratitude and deep obligation to live up to Christian standards.

How different from a Saudi mosque after a Wahhabi sermon.

Oh, we Jews could use some help against anti-Semitic rants. Where are these philosemites when we need them? http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/levant.html

---

Ezra Levant can be reached at ezra@ezralevant.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@calgarysun.com.

[nmh]

I believe that the anti-semitism label is a cover for collective guilt of many of the Jewish people.

[Ronzo]

So what should Jews do about this fact? Not condemn a movie-maker for simply animating what the Bible has always written. Not look with a magnifying glass for reasons to be offended. When the movie opens on Wednesday -- at a blockbuster 3,000 theatres -- all that will happen is that millions of people will realize that the critics were hypersensitive complainers -- or worse, condemning the Bible itself, not just the movie.

My goodness, reason and sanity from a Jewish writer. May God bless this honest man.

[NYer]

In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T — in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).

After his commission at the foot of the San Damiano Cross, Saint Francis chose a more ancient symbol of redemption as his standard: the Tau cross.

In commenting on the scriptures of Israel, the early Christian writers used its Greek translation, the Septuagint, in which the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the tau, was transcribed as a “T” in Greek. Prefigured in the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, then, the stylized Tau cross came to represent the means by which Christ reversed the disobedience of the old Adam and became our Savior as the “New Adam.”

[Clemenza]

Thanks Coleus. I just saw the movie at a local theatre in Brooklyn. I haven't seen an audience so moved by a film in my life. I am looking forward to the DVD as well.

[Coleus]

Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, "The Passion," has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics who charge him with anti-Semitism. It's a controversy that will continue to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion.

According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide. But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution.

If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides. We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around the year 30, but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said about Jesus' execution. The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries.

From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions.

A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin, which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." The passage indicates that Jesus' fate was entirely in the hands of the Jewish court.

The last two of the three items on Jesus' rap sheet, that he "enticed and led astray" fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T — in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).

These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts. The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter. Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud's Jesus is the one who founded Christianity.

In his great summation of Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of "Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court." In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides states that "Jesus of Nazareth … interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

It's unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson — Paula Fredriksen, a professor of religious studies at Boston University — is the author of a meticulously researched book, "Jesus of Nazareth," that suggests it was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities. Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal.

The best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death and clear the anger from the air. Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.

[rmlew]

What are we quilty for?

[rmlew]

Yeshu ben Pandera was not Jesus of Nazareth.